RANT: Is it Sophistry Yet?

[arendt]

sophistry(noun) - a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone.

Recently, I have experienced an odd thing at DU. In spite of increasing evidence that Bush and Cheney are running a police state, complete with wiretapping, intimidation, a propaganda ministry, secret rendition, torture, and unaccountable mercenary armies - a police state that has trampled all over the Constitution while starting brutal wars of agreession - some of us anti-Bush people have been told to lay off the fascist and Nazi references, because "the evidence isn't there", or "the analogy is flawed".

I was jumped upon for rejecting demands for black-and-white statements when I posted "DUers don't do nuance". I was excoriated for calling people "good Germans". (Tellingly, this attempt at excommunication from DU did not fall on Frank Rich's article by the same title in yesterday's NYT.) I was attacked for using the "Vichy Dems" reference.

Basically, there is a vocal minority here that starts shouting people down any time the question "Is it Fascism yet?" comes up in any way, shape, or form - no matter how tangentially or implicitly. I have posted WW2 analogies on this board for over five years; but it is only in the last five weeks that I have met with organized baiting whenever I dare to bring up a topic that has been my stock in trade.

This is not the way debate used to be carried out at DU. This is not reasonable argumentation.

Reasonable argumentation never works by appealing to the principle that if you don't go along with it, you're being unreasonable. Reasonable argumentation persuades by bringing up facts and ideas that are genuinely and reasonably persuasive and enlightening. It moves your beliefs naturally, without your having to decide that you "should" believe the conclusion. There is no guarantee that your conclusion will be right, but your understanding of the matter at hand will at least be better informed and more refined.

I have thought about this new situation; and I have a question:

IS IT SOPHISTRY YET?

If you haven't experienced what sophistry feels like, this is a great summary:

http://greenlightwiki.com/sophistry/Basic_Properties_Of_Sophistry

Here are some ideas about the Basic Properties Of Sophistry: the things that distinguish sophistry from other forms of reasoning and rhetoric--what gives sophistry its distinctive "smell" or "signature".

Disregard of context. The sophist is concerned entirely with rules: criticizing rules or demanding that rules be followed, regardless of how well the rules apply to the present situation. Implicitly, the sophist sets you up in a cognitive world where there is no possibility of intelligent judgement of particular circumstances. Instead, you are supposed to make appeal to rules which you are not allowed to abandon except by appeal to some higher rule. The rules must apply to all contexts (all "possible worlds" in analytic-philosophy-speak).

Demand for a priori criteria. The sophist typically demands that you be able to state rules by which you will interpret all future evidence and make all future decisions. The sophist then analyzes these rules for flaws, in that they could lead you into delusion in imaginary situations. The rules must be completely stable. If the sophist asks you for a reason why you might do something in one situation, and gives you another situation where the preconditions of that rule apply but you wouldn't exercise that rule, the sophist claims victory. The sophist claims to have humiliated you because he has exposed that you were making decisions without fully articulated a priori criteria. That shows that you're not rational. Not only that, you're changing the rules from one situation to the next. That shows that you're cheating.

Demand for justification before making a move. Of course, this is not always sophistry. In some special areas of life, such as courtroom trials, we demand that a "burden" of specific kinds of evidence be met as a precondition for taking some action. Sophistry tends to extend this need for justification far beyond the areas where it's feasible and useful. Skeptical sophistry tends to push a sort of cognitive hyper-humility, or freezing out of fear of ever being "wrong"--or even being right but not fully justified. If you were to reason as the skeptic suggests that you should reason, you'd never be able to do anything in real life, because you'd never have sufficiently articulated and proven a priori principles to get started, nor evidence to justify your actions according to those principles, nor time to think this stuff through to the demanded degree.

Judging from outside reasoning itself: criticizing without offering content, just attacking or appealing to meta-criteria. The sophist presents himself as a judge of reason itself, while disguising his arguments as an appeal to rationality.

Anyone recognize any of these behaviors occurring at DU? Just asking. :sarcasm:

Of course, if it were that easy to deal with sophistry, it wouldn't be such an insidious and chronic affliction of political discourse.

The sophist, whether arguing skeptically or positively, always offers an argument that is difficult to refute. You know the conclusion is stupid, but it's hard to say what the problem is or "beat it" at its own game. This is because sophistry doesn't break the rules by which we discuss and arrive at shared understanding or shared decisions. Rather, it abuses those rules by lifting them out of the concrete, real-world context that makes them meaningful and useful. To see what's going on, you have to put aside the system of rules and look directly at the real, concrete reality. The sophist can then accuse you of "cheating."

...a common aspect of sophistry: it takes more time to untangle it than most people have.

In the end, whether by intimidation or by sheer, bloody time-wasting, the purpose of sophistry is to shut down new ideas. New ideas are often first offered as metaphors, which are comparisons more than statements of equality. Sophistry declares open season on metaphors, the roots of fresh insight. The history on the importance of metaphor in language is vast:

Throughout history humankind has made use of metaphors. They lie at the heart of proverbs, myths and fables and, as such, are seen by most people as literary devices or figures of poetic or rhetorical speech (Confer, 1988).

Metaphors are, however, far more than just figures of speech (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980; Nadler & Luckner, 1992). They are rather indispensable structures of human understanding by which we figuratively comprehend our world(Hermans & Kempen, 1993).

Metaphors facilitate understanding by means of analogy (Confer, 1988). Essentially the metaphoric process entails the implicit comparison of two unlike bodies. The qualities of one body are transferred to the other to form a new combination that represents a new idea.

In this way we understand or experience one thing in terms of another. Seen from this perspective metaphorical combinations imply a construction of the world (Hermans & Kempen, 1993; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Nadler & Luckner, 1992).

But the sophistry squad does not want new insight. It wants an Inquisition.

Concern with rationality over truth and goodness. Every moment of life is to be like a courtroom trial, where your reasoning is judged according to how solidly established your conclusion is and whether you arrived at your conclusion by the correct rules. Results do not matter, and guesswork--the real-life way of making progress--is strictly forbidden. The sophist tries to shame you for not being "rational" (where "rationality" has been re-referenced so it refers to nothing beyond skill at winning sophistical argumentation games).

----

I am calling not these sophists mere nihilists, who do it simply because they enjoy causing chaos and frustration. Sophistry usually has an agenda. In this case, the agenda is to keep the focus on the horse race, on "winning", without ever asking exactly what the prize is. To focus on the horse race is to lose sight of the political ideas we hold sacred as a democracy. Rome had horse races; Byzantium had horse races; I will make the bold leap to suggest that even Nazi Germany had horse races. They are as marvelous distraction as the football games that Orwell mentioned in his famous quote about the life of a prole.

Let me close by paraphrasing (a form of metaphor) Churchill:

The truth about the authoritarian destruction of democracy in America is so vile that it must be hidden by a bodyguard of sophistry.

--------------------------------------------

NOTES:

A. Given what I just wrote, it would be pretty dumb to get into an argument with a bunch of sophists - many of whom I have on "ignore" already. So, bait me as you will. This is my statement on the matter.

B. In future, when facing sophistical arguments, I will simply reference this post.

C. By the way, people who prefer to have a real debate will benefit from having a vocabulary to describe sophistry, and using it as needed:

pettifogger (noun)
1. A lawyer who deals with unimportant cases, especially somewhat deceitfully or quibblingly.
2. Someone who argues over trivial details; a quibbler.

pettifoggery (noun)
1. The practice or arts of a pettifogger; disreputable tricks; quibbles; chicanery.

prevaricate (verb)
1. To avoid stating the truth or coming directly to the point; to behave or speak evasively.

prevarication (noun)
1. The act or an instance of behaving or speaking evasively
2. (Common Law) A false or deceitful seeming to undertake a thing for the purpose of defeating or destroying it.

equivocation (noun)
1. Use of a word or expression, open to more than one meaning, so as to mislead or confuse
2. To avoid committing oneself in what one says

[BridgeTheGap]

1. It could be at least one of two things (or both)

1. People with an agenda - i.e. squelching/keeping conversation/dialogue from heading in a certain direction (i.e. on the issue of fascism).
2. The general lack of critical thinking skills (rationality) among the population at large.

[arendt]

5. They go together: those lacking critical thinking find sophistry nearly impossible to refute. n/t

[DCKit]

9. I am not an unintelligent person, but....

when hit with a completely batshit crazy, off-the-wall argument, I tend to suffer brain freeze. Not any sort of compliance, by any means, but I need to learn to deal better than I have to date.

For instance, I asked my sister to deliver some food scraps I'd been saving for months (in the freezer) to my dogs at the family farm, her reply was "if we feed them meat, they'll go after the livestock." I was f-ing speechless, absolutely stunned.

The manager and board of my condominium have countered every suggestion for saving money with "that won't work here," "it's too expensive," or, the best, "you don't know what you're talking about." There is no discussion, it just IS. I'll admit to having issues with authority figures, but I don't propose anything that I haven't researched and documented using reputable sources.

Sophists have already made up their minds, are too damn lazy to do anything more than they absolutely have to, don't bother to look at the information provided and, worst of all, pull this shit just for the sake of manipulating others simply to stay in practice.

Given my vast personal experience, it was easy for me to see where we were headed the minute Dumbya and Darth stole their first election and, like so many others here, I'm tired of being angry all the time.

[KoKo]

131. Sophists have made up their minds....there's no use arguing with them...

Seems our present culture is filled with those types of thinkers as is our Burocracy and many entrenced in our Democratic Party from the "top down," with the exception of Howard Dean.

The Republicans have helped to make it so...because they lacking the ability for reflective thinking, the appreciation of irony and have no understanding of hypocracy in their words and actions.''

It makes one want to give up in trying to deal with them. And, that accomplishes exactly what it's intended to. There are quite a few of those kinds of sophists roaming around DU these days. They turn out for pre-election years then slink away to come back another year.

[Toots]

2. "DUers don't do nuance".

Is that black and white or white and black, it is so nuanced I am unable to tell.

[WilliamPitt]

12. 1010101010101010101010101

bzzzzz

[Hutzpa]

45. ¿¿¿¿¿¿

[WilliamPitt]

52. Binary code, i.e. "black and white"

:)

1010

[jpgray]

3. You called me a book-burner for pointing out how different prefascist Germany was from our situation

Then you put me on ignore. But to restate plainly, the contexts aren't at all the same. We don't have endemic unemployment, we don't have lethally violent state-sponsored gang reactionaries, we don't have week-long worker riots in the streets followed by brutal putdowns by the government. Those were all crucial factors in Germany's slide to fascism. Our slide into hideous authoritarianism is very different from that of Germany, but it isn't -just- that we aren't as far along as they were, it's that the context in which it's happening is almost wholly different, the magnitude is different, and the means used by the government are different. You can't compare particulars on such a general level that you ignore their most crucial contextual causes without your comparison losing all useful meaning.

[redqueen]

35. What definition of fascism are you using?

Seems like many here like to go with Mussolini's definition.

What characteristics of fascism do you see or not see in our government, today?

Do you see the threat of a further drift towards fascism?

Just curious...

[jpgray]

37. We do have a fascistic government. We don't have fascism or reaction comparable to Germany's

I get peeved when people separate out general methods for comparison while ignoring their contexts, and their magnitude. Yes, in 20s-40s Germany and in the US people are imprisoned without regard to the rule of basic law, but the -magnitude- and the methods of such in Germany were far beyond what we are experiencing here. Yes, Germany went down a road of totalitarianism, but theirs was an entirely different road than the one we are marching down. It's not so much correct descriptions of our dangerously authoritarian government that get to me, it's facile comparisons between our situation and historical situations that ignore the crucial contextual differences that made each situation possible.

[redqueen]

39. I see what you're saying...

I suppose it's a matter of how you view the current situation. I see things like the executive order giving bush de facto control of all three branches of government in case of... whatever... and there are many more such directives and laws that have been put in place over the past 20 yeras... and those things alarm me enough to consider that although the context is not the same, the path is similar enough to warrant direct comparison. I'm guessing those who use the comparison to Nazi Germany are focusing on the groundwork that has been laid which seems to me to be pointing us squarely in that direction.

:shrug:

[jpgray]

43. The causes, the context, and the methods are different. That doesn't make our plight less dangerous

If the purpose of these analogies is to get to the truth of the matter, to accurately predict the causes and effects of our road to fascism, comparison to 20's or 30s Germany is not going to be effective because of those vast differences. If the purpose of the analogy is to make an effective argument that we are in a dangerous place, those who do not agree we are in a dangerous place already will focus on the substantial differences that mar the comparison, and the truth of the argument's -conclusion- will be marginalized and ignored.

To make my own completely facile and invalid comparison, it's like PETA attacking Al Gore to defend animal rights. The cause is noble, but the argument used to promote that cause could be more effective. We don't need to artificially inflate our situation by claiming it fits in with a very different road to fascism--the reality is convincing and frightening enough on its own merits.

[redqueen]

44. Is it really?

The reality is all but ignored by the vast majority. Even many here will tell you that conditions here aren't any worse than they've been in the past.

Seems like you can't win. Reality itself isn't enough to rouse some...

[jpgray]

46. I don't think the best arguments against where we're going have enough exposure

And they are out there. Bill Moyers is doing a great job, for example.

[redqueen]

47. The arguments against where we're going?

Could you rephrase that please?

I don't get how people here could think our current situation is just business as usual. :crazy:

[jpgray]

48. The best arguments -against- our increasing authoritarianism don't have exposure

In fact that's one very important difference between our path to fascism and Germany's. During the crucial period leading up to the Nazis' victory in the 1930 election Germany had an enormous number of major independent newspapers, whereas in our fall towards totalitarianism media consolidation has played a huge role.

[redqueen]

49. I see...

so, at least in that one regard, it's actually worse now, yes? The drift toward fascism would be greatly facilitated by such conditions, no?

[robinlynne]

57. ah red, you are a patient queen.

[jpgray]

65. It's worse in some aspects, better in others

Different, in other words. :D

[redqueen]

69. Well of course different...

no two situations are ever exactly the same.

My point was that this time, it seems the conditions may be right for a much faster shift.

[jpgray]

70. Now -that's- hard to say. It's difficult to find a historical model that would be a good predictor

And by different I mean different in crucial, epochal ways--ways that make the analogy unsuitable for use in predicting or understanding current events. The causes of a mass shift in a country's political thinking are so interdependent it's difficult to sift out particulars for comparison without robbing them of important context. We know from our own country's history (even recent history) that prolonged war is rarely tolerated by the public. Generally the long periods of corporate domination and authoritarianism are counteracted before they reach complete fascism, and we do see some evidence in polls that Bush's most offensive changes are all extremely unpopular.

However I will take my own advice and note that our media situation is very different, and the country's political debate has moved inexorably right to perhaps a degree not seen before, due to new tools and methods being available. But I don't see us being doomed just yet.

[redqueen]

71. Thanks, jpgray.

You're one of the members here whom I most respect, so your optimism gives me a little hope... something I (and probably others) are finding in very short supply these days.

So... thanks again for the civil discussion & the ray of hope. :hi:

[Uncle Joe]

118. Regarding this sentence

"Generally the long periods of corporate domination and authoritarianism are counteracted before they reach complete fascism, and we do see some evidence in polls that Bush's most offensive changes are all extremely unpopular."

It seems to me, we take two steps toward fascism and then one step back, that's been the pattern. I believe we're heading in that direction just much slower than Germany or Italy. Privacy is rapidly being evaporated for one reason or another, and it's always a "good" reason but the result is our bodies are gradually becoming properties of the state or corporation, do you want to flip hamburgers, piss in this cup first. Now this may be myth, but Al Gore has joked he had to take is shoes off to fly, the former Vice President! Another analogy he uses is the frog in a pot of water slowly being heated up will not jump out, this in regard to our denial for so long on the issue of global warming, but I believe it applies to our individual rights and privacy as well. We've created super-citizen corporations, money is now viewed as speech, what does that do to the average citizen's voice?

[tigereye]

40. well the interesting thing is that Hitler apparently made alliances initially

with many of the people he later excoriated, marginalized and then had arrested or executed. He was a master at manipulating all his foes and opponents by appearing to support them.

Not sure where that fits in.... I suppose you could say that the manipulative aspects of the Bush admin has some of that flavor, but overall I agree with you that the overall premise/Hitler comparisons don't seem apt.

[Hutzpa]

51. What you have not

realize is that, that theory would not apply at this time as it would be too obvious, it has to be remodel, reshape and sold as a form of security i.e fighting terrorist, police using force to fight crime, freedom of speech, invasion of privacy, etc as was mentioned by some of the posts, these are tell tale signs that puts us on that course.

[JDPriestly]

99. My husband lived as a child in what was then NAZI Germany.

For years, he has been saying that the similarities are striking. Of course, there are differences. We don't have massive unemployment, but we do have massive underemployment. People with college degrees work as waiters and waitresses and do menial labor because better jobs are not available.

We have gone down the road to totalitarianism. When members of a government can out a CIA agent or prosecute or not prosecute certain people all to benefit one leader or party, and the public is relatively silent, the press acquiescent and what is supposed to be a representative body of the government complicit, you better believe it's not that different from NAZI Germany. This is especially true when the leader of the executive claims the right to arrest and imprison individuals indefinitely without a right to trial or legal representation for being terrorists, but does not define terrorists.

And what are our representatives in Congress all excited about? SCHIP. That's the best they can do. There is nothing wrong with getting mad about Bush's veto of SCHIP, but SCHIP is a minor thing compared to the abuse of the Constitution. Bush has intimidated our so-called representatives. They are powerless. They are frightened. I am old. I have enjoyed a good life. I feel sorry for those who are young today. They will grow old in a dictatorship. We used to be free. We will soon be enslaved as the Germans were. It is very sad.

The NAZIs took power by scaring the Germans about the Bolsheviks. The Bushies have taken power by scaring us about the Muslim extremists. There really were Bolsheviks. There really are Muslim extremists. But the NAZIs were just as bad as the Bolsheviks, maybe even worse since the Bolsheviks were not popular in Germany in the first place. I leave it to you to draw the parallel to the Muslim extremists.

[bread_and_roses]

115. So if there are cause and context differences we can't compare outcomes?

Well, that would deprive us of most metaphor, analogy, or even any possibility of historical comparison - leaving us with a very bankrupt language for discourse. Let's see - we cannot compare the current cabal in power in the US to the Roman Em porers in any way because their behavior may have been fueled by lead poisoning and our's isn't? (oh, wait - ours may be after all!)

Or, we can't compare the deforestation of the Amazon to that of Easter Island because one results from humans cutting trees by hand in service to some mysterious cultural compulsion and the rain forest is being destroyed by bulldozers in service to corporate profit - and besides, Easter Island is bare while the Amazon is still green on a map so the scale is different? There is no validity or use to the analogy even though the outcome could be very similar?

The Roman Empire, Easter Island, and Nazi Germany are vivid illustrations of where certain trends lead. They fulfill the definition you give down-thread for a useful analogy. They are commonly known. They can spur insight precisely because they can take the mind out of the mundane, every-day normalcy of going to work and to the grocery store and the school play and into the realm of principle - and of consequences.

And that would make the Nazi analogy useful even if we had not seen already people disappeared, tortured, imprisoned without recourse, a war of aggression waged solely for power and resources, a propaganda assault, spying on the population, the classic use of fear to keep the population acquiescent, the wanton slaughter of civilians - etc. For every difference in "cause and context" you cite a likeness in outcome can be named.

Does it make a difference that our wars of aggression and revenge are not conducted on our physical borders but across the ocean? Does it make a difference that our concentration camp - Gitmo - is not within our borders and is on a smaller scale? That our spying on dissidents is conducted largely by electronic surveillance rather than by neighbors reporting to the police? That our SS is called Blackwater and is a corporation?

The comparison of the US under its' current regime and Nazi Germany is not a comparison of "cause and context" but of behavior - of actions. And I see nothing in your posts to make it less apt.

An R for this OP from me.

[EstimatedProphet]

110. And a perfect reason why this is important happened yesterday

Right on this very board. News got out that Randi Rhodes was injured and lost several teeth, in what was reported to be a mugging. Immediately people started drawing the conclusion that it was a hit by the Republicans of some sort - with no evidence to suggest anything like that at all. It is because of the hysterical attitude on DU lately that people came to this conclusion. It is also a hysterical attitude that leads people to compare our country to Nazi Germany. to react as if it is the same is to overreact, which leads to both a loss of credibility and an inability to address the problems that really do exist.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. Sorry what some of us said is

if this was an attack it follows a PATTERN, target key individuals

By the way, she may have been attacked according to new york papers and the statement released by her lawyer

Who or what or why... we don't know

But to SPECULATE that this might have been an attack on a key individual is not unwarranted given the PATTERN in all closing societies

Now I wish I could live in your reality where this is dismissed out of hand. After all we don't have a FISA passed that gives more powers, the NSA spying from well before 9.11 with no warrants, the DHS, and other markers for a closing society.

Yep, I guess the last seven years have been a figment of our collective imaginations

[EstimatedProphet]

130. Yes, it is unwarranted, given the fact that we didn't know anything

And because we didn't know anything, other than a fragment of information delivered on AAR, any one statement has just as much bearing within the context of the knowledge we did have as any other. So to say it had to be an attack is just as likely as to say that she tripped, or that leprechauns beat her up. And people were specifically calling it an attack and implicating freepers. She may have been attacked. She may not have been attacked. Claiming one or the other is not valid at this point.

See, your pattern of all-or-nothing statements, wherein you accuse anyone of saying that they are trying to ignore fascism just because they don't run around in a panic like you do is showing here. By saying that people jumped to conclusions, I am not saying FISA never happened, or that he NSA hasn't spied on citizens. To believe that the one means the other is stupid. Also, it means you lost the argument, since you can't argue against what I say and have to invent things for me to say in order to refute them.

[DCKit]

4. K&R, bookmarked and printed.

Thanks for defining the past seven years for us.

[ret5hd]

6. Nihilists:

Walter: Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

[cali]

7. This is a political discussion board

Put things out there and you're likely to be challenged.

Edited to add: It all depends on the lens through which we view things. You see sophistry on one side of a current debate; I see mischaracterization and sophistry on the other.

Considering that the OP has called people who disagree with him "bookburners" and called them "stupid", this OP stands as an example of cognitive dissonance.

[redqueen]

36. Dunno about you, but I won't discount everything a person says

just because they get hot under the caller once in a while.

[cali]

42. I'm simply pointing out the irony of the OP's

finger pointing, by saying that he's done what he objects to others doing.

[Hutzpa]

54. Being here as long as I have

I'm sure you've seen the changes the OP is refering to, I don't think OP should be bashed for expressing ones self, besides I don't see it as finger pointing, I'm looking at it as a concern, as long as I've been here, I've seen the changes too and it concerns me.

[cali]

62. As I said, it's always the lens we view things through

And we all have our individual lenses. You see it differently than I do, and that's fine, but it doesn't make your viewpoint any more valid than mine. And I too, have been here for a long time.

[TahitiNut]

78. One's RIGHT to an opinion (or viewpoint) does NOT equate to VALIDITY ...

... of the reasoning that leads to that opinion. One can be CORRECT (which isn't mere agreement) in a conclusion and arrive at that conclusion INVALIDLY. More often, however, one arrives at an incorrect conclusion by invalid reasoning processes. It is often the lament of those defending their invalid reaonsing that they have a "right" to do so. That's irrelevant - a red herring - and demonstrates yet another instance of invalid reasoning.

[cali]

84. That's precisely what I said.

In certain situations, all we have is the lens we look through. In others, facts must be taken into account. When we're talking about something as subjective as what constitutes a sophisty or red herring, short of an expert in the field, it's more a matter of opinion than anything else.

Quite often a charge of sophistry or straw man is used to avoid dealing rationally with a perfectly valid point. Sometimes it's an accurate charge.

Who decides these things? No one here is THE authority.

[Hutzpa]

94. Cali sometimes opinions

can be biased and misleading. People tends to twist the truth and I'm sure you're aware of that.

[cali]

104. That's often true

but again, who's the authority on what opinions are biased and misleading? I've seen historical facts misrepresented, corrected them with primary sources and still seen people defending their version of "facts". However facts, opinion and truth are all different. Facts are concrete. Opinion and "truth" are not.

[Totally Committed]

8. Awesome post ---- Damn, you're good!

What more could one add to that?

Thanks, arendt.

TC

[Triana]

10. I'd like an answer to that myself. Even OFF of DU I have gotten Hell

....from other non-bu$hit supporters for the same references. "Well when you start using the word 'Nazi' you lose the argument right there!" (or 'fascist' or 'police state' - or pick your word)

Excuse me? It IS what it IS...but some polyannas, I think, can't face that. And THAT is what got Hitler into power, isn't it? Refusal to SEE what is going on right in front of their eyes, much less to DO anything about it.

[jpgray]

15. When one's definitions of "fascism" or "police state" become too elastic, they lose meaning

For example, let's say we define a police state simply as a nation that ignores the rule of law and imprisons individuals without regard to habeas corpus. That's too loose a definition to be meaningful, because it includes both Nazi Germany and America under Lincoln or FDR. While there is a unanimous consensus that Nazi Germany was a police state, it's not as clear to historians or the public at large that the latter two would qualify as a police state. When the definition is so loose, it minimizes the horror of true police states to inflate a warning about the dangers of our own authoritarianism.

Now in activism hyperbole is often an effective rhetorical tactic, but on DU we presumably all agree that the country is dangerously, hideously authoritarian, so subverting the meaning of words to make that point becomes far less necessary.

[BridgeTheGap]

31. How important is the label?

And is there agreement on what that label means?
I think you're right that comparing what is taking place in the U.S. now with what happened in Germany under Nazism, is very different.
That said, the tendency of capitalism is ALWAYS toward monopolism (cornering markets) and fascism (monopolistic control of the economy by oligarchy in collusion with the State). Many of the framers of our constittution recognized this threat and sought to mitigate it through regulation (corporations serving the public and charters reviewed annually to make sure that's what they were doing).
Possibly, the comparison with Nazi Germany is meant to goad people into action out of fear. But fascism comes in several forms and probably a few we haven't seen. There are definately forces at work in the U.S. who want us on that trajectory.

[jpgray]

34. My problem only comes in when we are compared with a particular fascism

To say that our current government is fascistic is completely valid. To say we are experiencing fascism or reaction comparable to those in Germany during the 20s or 30s is less valid to me. Does that make sense? I don't mind analogies to those times, I don't think they are off-limits, but I do want people to bear the differences in mind. Because making that analogy in an overhasty way will only convince those who already agree with you. Which is fine on DU, but I assume we want to convince others of the danger as well.

[Hutzpa]

56. You don't think so

go to Virginia (especially around the metro area), and drive around, see how motorist are being harassed in the disguise of terrorism.

[WilliamPitt]

11. Your candidate sucks.

I make in my pants sometimes.

:P

[baldguy]

13. On target

Unfortunately, most people - even on DU - won't have a clue about what your getting at. And they could care less.

When you or I say the neocon fascists threaten the existence of America - they dismiss it as hyperbole.

[countingbluecars]

14. Great post. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. I actually like the Sophists

They get a bum rap from Platonism.

We need MORE "sophistry," not less of it.

[Odin2005]

26. Yep, Plato and Aristotle gave the Sophists a bad reputation they don't deserve.

The Sophists were ardent supporters of democracy and a kind of "proto-liberalism," some Sophists were the backers of a anti-slavery movement that almost succeeded and would of succeeded had the anti-democratic intellectual reaction led by Plato and Aristotle (both you defended slavery as part of the natural order of things) not of gained the upper had. The sophists were skeptics, but they weren't skeptics in the negative way the term "sophistry" denotes today. They were extremely brilliant critics of dogmatic adherence to tradition and were critical of the anti-democratic BS spewed by the propagandists of the elites. Socrates was not himself a sophist, but he carried their skepticism as far as it could go. Sadly, Socrates's pupil Plato betrayed the legacy of his humble and skeptical teacher.

[Hutzpa]

59. So from your

ranting above I take it you're for Sophist or should I asked whether are you for or against, I could not tell from your response. :shrug:

[H2O Man]

17. Really good post.

Thank you. We have some folks who would like to convince us that we should forget the lessons of people like JFK, RFK, Malcolm, and Martin. The same few want us to ignore our nation's history. Can you imagine if George Bush or Dick Cheney had the gall to tell DUers that they need to forget the Kennedys, or ignore our nation's history?

[jpgray]

20. You shouldn't ignore history. You also shouldn't abuse it by hasty or inattentive analogy

Because it degrades your audience, it degrades the history, and it degrades the person who makes the comparison. A good historical analogy enthralls and educates the audience; a bad one will convince only those who already agree with the speaker's argument to begin with.

[Odin2005]

18. Comparing the Neocons to the Nazis ignores the detailed surrounding the Nazis' rise to power.

Much of the support for the Nazis came from the middle class in reaction to the popularity of the Communists among the working classes as well as a result of Germany not having a strong tradition of liberal democracy and German society having a more authoritarian mindset the the US ever had. The Nazis would of never come to power had they of not had the support of the middle class, a fact those who emphasize how that were backed by the rich seem to miss. There is no comparable bunch of militant extreme left-wingers equivalent to the German Communist Party in the US. Indeed, the majority of people, including the middle class, are becoming disgusted with the neocon-fundamentalist "alliance" within the GOP.

[robinlynne]

61. the german communists are now the "terrorists". the idea is to create a common enemy.

That always spreads "patriotism". The enemy will not be identical from country to country. the point is you need an enemy to create fear, and to rally the country. communists=enemy=fear terrorists=enemy-fear
same thing.

[Odin2005]

87. In my experience people are getting sick of the "terrah, terrah, terrah!!!" crap.

Most people I've talked to, even many conservatives, are becoming cynical about *Co's fear-mongering.

[robinlynne]

88. which has nothing to do with comparing the nazi's use of the communists

to the republican's use of the terrorists.

And, in disagreement, Dianne Feinstein says clearly that she signed away our rights this past august (FISA) because she was convinced that a terror attack was imminent. So, unfortunately, the terror is running our lives right now. It is being used for the state secrets privilege all over the place. It is the way they hide all the corruption. It is why kbr and all the other companies are able to get no-bid contracts, and it is why more than a third of our budget goes to the military, with democratic votes included. (If all the dems didn't believe in the terror, we could stop the whole thing right now.)

[JDPriestly]

100. Your argument is flawed.

Bush has used the threat of Muslim terrorists in the manner that Hitler used the threat of the Bolsheviks. The Bolshevik sympathizers among working class Germans were far more numerous than the Muslim terrorists in the U.S., but the fear among middle class Americans of the Muslim terrorists is just as real. And, while the Bolsheviks were more numerous in German society, they were not more frightening than the Muslim terrorists. The Muslim terrorists showed on 9/11 that a small number of them could cause terrible damage. It is the terror, the fear, that enables the dictator, not the number of individuals people fear. The Bolsheviks were a real threat as are the Muslim terrorists. But then, we have always had threats to fear. The Founding Fathers had to face the very real and horrible threat of British soldiers on American soil. Bush has used our fear to take away our rights. The Founding Fathers used the fear of the British soldiers to give us rights. We have to choose which model we want to follow. Acknowledging the similarity between Bush's use of our fear with that of Hitler's use of the German people's fear is useful in assessing how to react to our fear. The fear itself is warranted. But is the fascist, NAZI-like response with which Bush has reacted to it warranted? I think not. I think we should react like the Founding Fathers and affirm our freedom, not give it up like the NAZIs did. I hope this clarifies why the analogy of the NAZIs is useful and proper here.

An analogy does not have to be perfect. Indeed, historical analogies never are. The adage that "history repeats itself" is true in a broad sense. In a very literal sense, history never truly repeats itself. When people compare the Bush administration to the NAZIs, they do not mean that the Bushies and the NAZIs are identical in every respect. They mean that the similarities are numerous enough to allow us to draw lessons from the experiences of the NAZIs in Germany.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[jpgray]

28. Edited out

I probably need to take a break from DU for a bit. :silly:

[tom_paine]

29. Ummm, have I put you on ignore, jp?

Wait, let me go check.

Nope, not there. I only put Smear and Sneerers on the ignore list, and although we disagree, you have always been civil and have debated my points intelligently, not attacked me personally.

So no, I do not consider you any of those things. My apologies for you getting caught in the blast as it were, for it was not intended for you nor anyone with whom I have had a simple disagreement with, no matter how aggreesively I may argue.

I happen to disagree with you, somewhat vehemently on the issue of whether or not the New Totalitarianism even exists, but I NEVER included you in the Smear and Sneer Brigade.

In fact, I would welcome continued civil discourse with you and others with whom I disagree.

But the Smear and Sneerers who have NOTHING to bring to a conversation but infantile insults? That is another matter.

Again, I apologize to you, jp. My remarks were targeted at the group of four or five people I have recently placed on ignore.

Not you. Sorry for trhe confusion. Please don't take my comments on the Sneer and Smearers personally, for I do not include you in that group.

[jpgray]

30. Don't apologize--I'm the asshole for making that assumption

But I've directly received a number of personal attacks recently, and a few of them have really gotten to me. I feel I can disagree with the validity of those analogies and still recognize the incredible danger of our situation, but many feel that because I disagree with the analogy I must hate -all- historical analogies, I must be denying there is -any- problem at all with our country, etc. So I'm a little over-defensive, and am posting far more on this subject than I probably should. -I- apologize--my arguments on this issue must seem obsessive, but I care very much about history and its use, and I don't want to see arguments that abuse it on our side any more than I want to see it on the other.

[tom_paine]

32. I understand. We're cool.

Peace.

I guess only time will truly settle this debate.

And let me reiterate one more time how joyous I shall be on such a day if my concerns are shown to have been unfounded.

[jpgray]

33. I think an extreme level of concern is definitely warranted

I don't need to see an equivalent to the Liebknecht and Luxemborg murders to know we're in a dangerous place, and need to oppose any further movement down this path at every turn.

[Zodiak]

66. I'm cool with you jpgrey

and I am a notorious ignorer of those who "sneer and smear", as well (although I don't advertise, just ingore and move on). I come here for intelligent discourse, not insults and strawmen. There is a paucity of both in your posts, and I look forward to exchanges with you in the future.

[cali]

21. Hmm.

"If its so serious, what are you doing about it - other than pissing on potential allies...
in the fight against tyranny?

Riddle me that, Batman?"

arendt

And a non-sequiter and personal attack, calling a poster who politely disagreed with the OP a book burner? That comment has been deleted but other comments in the same thread calling the OP on his comments remain.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2047083

[Elspeth]

58. Hmmm squared

Hmmm.....

[H2O Man]

23. Malcolm X

used to say he knew he had said something right when his enemies squeeled the loudest. Gracious, Malcolm was a wise man!

[jpgray]

25. That's actually a good example of sophistry.

It's similar to the Bush argument that increased terrorist attacks indicate their desperation and our approaching victory. At least Malcolm's cause was a noble one.

[cuke]

83. Not to mention that it misportrays some DUers as "the enemy"

if they disagree with arendt

[tom_paine]

27. That's why the Bushies likely paid those black guys to kill him

n/t

[Hutzpa]

68. Tom.....Tom....Tom.......

c'mon now, don't stoop so low dude.

[tom_paine]

75. Oh, you believe that the "60s Bushies" had nothing to with those murders

JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm and God knows who else?

I will neither stoop nor rise. I will go where reality and the available evidence suggests.

I will speculate like they must have speculated about what was going on in Eastern Europe 1941-1945 before anyone knew for sure.

Do you doubt that millions were also saying, "Calm down. It can't be that bad. You ae misinterpreting the data and besides we have no proof but a crumpled sweat-stained copy of some Wannasee Protocol which is probably a poor Jewsih fabrication," at that time?

It is not I who have stooped low. It was the Loyal Bushie Murderers and the Royal Bushies who gave them their orders who have stooped, if indeed that is what happened.

[Hutzpa]

77. I'm not so sure about Malcolm

because there was an infighting or dispute between Malcolm and Elijah Muhammad's Nation of Islam. Though I won't put anything past the Bushies, I don't think the death of Malcolm X should be acquainted with them, we are fighting against Sophistry and that kind of statement could be seen as that.

[tom_paine]

79. Touche. I withdraw my statement.

However, I said that I SUSPECT, rather than 100% believe that.

[Hutzpa]

96. Thank God for common sense

:evilgrin:

[H2O Man]

117. Shortly before

he was executed in NYC, Malcolm had traveled to Europe. Although he had visited France before, he was turned away at customs. It created a curious situation.

James Farmer spoke of a French politician who had told him that the French authorities had not allowed Malcolm to enter their country, because they were aware that there was an attempt on his life being planned. It is fair to say that the Nation of Islam did not have the capacity to kill Malcolm in France. The French politician told Farmer that it was a sad day when American intelligence was preparing to kill their own citizens.

[Richard Steele]

38. Yes. Yes it is. recommended

[Cerridwen]

41. Well Done! K & R

I wish I had something meaningful and pithy to add, but for now, all I can say is well done!

[Atman]

50. You described "the site that must not be mentioned" to a tee.

Perfect! Anyone who has tried to carry on a "conversation" there knows what I'm talking about. Absolutely perfect example. Sophist Underground.

.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. I appreciate your trying to put an intellectual framework on these discussions,

unlike some posters I could name.

I think that we have massive denial and historical ignorance at work here.

When one compares the Bushies to the Nazis, one risks bringing up nothing more than images of concentration camps in the mind of a person who knows twentieth century history only through the distorted lens of the History Channel. Since we don't have American citizens being rousted in the middle of the night and shipped off to extermination camps in boxcars, the comparison seems far-fetched to them.

People in general are ignorant of two things:

1) While the Nazis were definitely fascist, there were a uniquely vicious variety. There have actually been dozens of fascist governments in recent history, promoting a high level of militarism and jingoism, a low level of human rights, and a free rein for corporate interests to exploit workers. Examples include Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, prewar Japan, Taiwan and South Korea until about 1990, China now (despite its self-proclaimed Communism), and Pinochet's Chile.

I visited Taiwan in 1985. There were uniformed soldiers with automatic weapons at intersections where most societies would have traffic cops. There were political slogans on billboards, such as "Anti-Communism is our fundamental principle" and "We will take back the mainland" and "United under the leadership of Chiang Ching-kuo." There were restrictions on what you could photograph. On the whole, people went about their daily lives. That's the deceptive thing about fascism. If you're willing to live without strong opinions, you can almost not notice it.

2) The Nazis started small. They didn't come to power in 1933 and immediately start shipping Jews to concentration camps. They started with a propaganda barrage to encourage the German public to have negative feelings about Jews, Gypsies, gay people, and the disabled, and then they began taking away one civil right after another. By the time Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, there were 120,000 people in prison for political reasons.

Although I grew up in the era when people talked about "the Red Menace," I always felt that American culture, with its glorification of athletes and business tycoons, its equation of patriotism with militarism, its anti-intellectualism, and its "every man for himself" attitude towards social problems, was more likely to give rise to fascism.

Are we a full-blown fascist state yet? Probably not. Are we headed in that direction? Oh, yes!

However, that idea is too scary for a lot of people, especially if their patriotism is stalled at the elementary school level and they are still convinced that "Americans are always the good guys."

[MedleyMisty]

60. My favorite way of putting it is that they think Hitler came into existence in September of 1939

and the camps and the war sprang fully formed from his forehead.

You know, I found a book from the 30s at the used bookstore a while ago. "Fascism and Big Business". I kept pointing paragraphs out to my husband and saying "Does this sound familiar?"

Why do you think that some people refuse to see the forest because the bark on one tree is not exactly identical in all respects to the bark on another tree? I guess, like you say, it's the same wall I hit every time I ask why people deny reality and in doing so make it worse - fear and ignorance.

And dumbing down the educational system to produce a critical mass of ignorance was a neat trick. And of course we all know about the peddling of fear.

[jpgray]

63. Actually the more in depth your knowledge of German history, the less comparable the two become

The context and the causes of fascism in Germany are just drastically different than what we are experiencing. In the 20s and 30s the working class was out rioting and faced brutal reaction from police, leftists were being murdered by gov't-organized thugs, unemployment spun out of control to the point that it impacted virtually every German family--we just don't have a similar situation here, and therefore -our- dangerous slide into fascism is not very much like that of Germany. It's my opinion that comparing very general particulars while ignoring the vast difference in magnitude and method doesn't illuminate either situation very well. For example in Weimar Germany and in this country there is suppression of dissent, but someone like Kucinich would be rifle-butted in the head, shot, and dumped in a river were our situation like Germany's in 1919. One would argue that media consolidation is a crucial factor in our road to fascism, yet leading up to the Nazis' 1930 Reichstag success, Germany had a far greater number of major independent newspapers than we do today. So while we are on a very dangerous road, it is quite different from Germany's road in many important ways.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. I agree with your point that the context is different

I actually don't like comparisons to the Nazis, but unfortunately, most Americans have never heard of any other variety of fascism. Most people will look at you blankly if you mention even a recent example, such as Argentina in the 1970s.

We're not 1930s Germans. We're 2007 Americans. The Bushies remind me of a number of fascist societies, including ancient Rome, which felt that it had the right to run the world and in fact dominated the known world both militarily and culturally.

[jpgray]

72. But you're correct that people who just say "we haven't killed 6 million Jews" are missing something

The irrevocable connection the holocaust has with the much more prevalent system of government known as "fascism" is really unfortunate. "Socialism" is similarly misidentified in this country.

[Hutzpa]

74. we agree to disagree

now.....you might have me on iggy hence the reason you missed my post #51, we may not be there yet according to your reference with 30s Germany, but you failing to realize that 30s Germany and 07 America are two different era, society as a whole has learn from past mistakes, so in my view we are not going to see same pattern today...oh...no, it has to be more sophisticated than 30s.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. It's 2007.

If the fence-sitters have pulled their heads out of their asses by now, they never will.

In order to have a police-state, you've got to have a willing population who will ignore, excuse, and apologize for it's abusive.

So if you run into them, ignore them. They're too stupid and spineless to waste your time with.

Fuck 'em.

[robinlynne]

64. most excellent post. Thank-you.

[progressoid]

73. No Shit!

God-damned prevaricating, equivocating, unreasonable, vocal minority sophists.

They're ruining DU.

[TahitiNut]

76. "Anyone recognize any of these behaviors occurring at DU?"

:rofl: Well, d'uh! "Notice"?? Shit ... we wade in it.

I recently pointed out that a "DUer" was engaging in sophistry (which is a fairly easily discernable fact) and got the ol' "that's merely your opinion" retort. Unfuckingreal.

[Hutzpa]

80. Won't allow a slow death, so....

:kick:

[hootinholler]

81. "To focus on the horse race is to lose sight of the political ideas we hold sacred as a democracy."

DUUUDE

:thumbsup:

-Hoot

[T.Ruth2power]

82. Excellent rant

Folks can get hung up on minor points and then accentuate those points or hammer on them endlessly to avoid discussing the heart of the matter. See it all the time.

One could go after a strict definition of fascism to distract from your main thesis in such cases but the larger fact of state control remains the same. Then again it could just be a liberal democracy.

[earth mom]

85. Awesome post! The game plan is to muddy the waters because they can't have people knowing the truth.

But as my sig says; The Truth will out...eventually.

[flashl]

86. Seem sometimes like human bots appear for specific topics. n/t

[arendt]

89. Front page kick. n/t

[conscious evolution]

90. The sophists are definitely here.

And,as usual,they have shown up in this thread.
Can't have truth getting out to the masses you know.

[L0oniX]

91. Kick (_o_) & R

Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court



http://www.twainquotes.com/quotesatoz.html

[tom_paine]

116. Damn, Loonix, that's a great quote plucked from the past!

I have said it a million times before.

No matter what the technology, no matter what our energy budget, humanity does not really change, and has not really changed, since the first Bushie, working with the first priest, convinced the frist weak-minded, gullible fool to kill his neighbor.

This is yet another quote which goes a long way towards proving the truth of that assertion.

I mean, has the 100% truth of that statement changed a WHIT, an IOTA from when Twain said it?

All the enlightenment (which we are now rapidly shedding), all the technology, all the creture comforts in the world cannot change the basic primate-nature of humanity.

I cannot remember which Twain essay it was, but there is a wonderful one where he "proves" that humanity is not a creation of God, but of Satan.

[nashville_brook]

92. can't believe i've missed this thread all day -- wonderful discussion!

thanks arendt!

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Well said and we know WHO they are

at this point I no longer engage them

They are in my now growing ignore list

IT is about ten people at most

In real life confronting the bully works

In cyber life ignoring the bully is effective

I have dealt with this personality type before

So my advise

that is what the ignore list is for....

[DS1]

95. The more center you move (Hillary) the closer to you move to right

and the right cannot tolerate change.

Seems pretty simple to me.

[barbtries]

97. thank you

excellent and informative; i learned from this post.

several years ago i came upon a web article enumerating 14 - think it was 14 - characteristics of fascism.it was the united states since the 2000 election had been strongarmed by the bushies. my country tis of thee is just a used to be.

but at least there is still DU.

[sce56]

98. I have been calling them NAZIS for quite sometime now! I also get locked quite a bit!

Got Fascism Yet?



http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bush-nazilinkconfirmed.htm




Fascism Accomplished

[Senator]

101. Diagnosis: Impeachophobia

You see, if it were "fascism yet," something would have to be done about it.

Sophists are really just demanding that you participate in a conversation they are having with themselves.

====

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. Thank you for that link

and by the way, you probably noticed, we are crossing goal posts faster and faster now

[cornermouse]

103. Yes!!!!!!

Finally someone says something about it.



:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Pacifist Patriot]

105. I have often wondered if it our educational system coupled with...

social norms in contemporary American society. I have noticed two things.

1. Philosophy, including logic and argumentation, is not taught as a routine subject prior to university, and there it is an elective or required for only some particular majors.

2. Our mindset tends towards literalism and concretization of symbols. Metaphorical thinking is suppressed and therefore misunderstood when used.

[HamdenRice]

106. Really wanna see this crap? Check out the "untruth" squad in the 9/11 dungeon nt

[lvx35]

107. I got called a sophist on this site, for claming that the democratic party represented

standing together with the democratic majority. It was because the majority is backing Hillary right now, and I said that's okay, and we should support her in the general election.

So I am wary of this word, sophistry, because it was applied to me in making very common sense arguments.

But at the same time I have seen the nonsense attack squads on DU, and its good to speak out against them whenever you see them.

[Syntheto]

108. Perceptions are important.

The problem you have is that we're currently beginning the "hot"cycle of the 2008 election cycle (versus the "cold" cycle of the other two-and-a-half/three years.

As a strategy, would you agree that it would make sense for the other side to start linking to the more strident, provocative postings here? In fact, wouldn't it make sense for our side to start linking to those types of postings from the other side during this important phase of a national election?

As an example, there are already a lot of netmemes being floated out there that Randi Rhodes was so drunk that she fell flat on her face and broke some teeth out, while counter netmemes say that she was actually pushed from behind by Blackwater mercenaries on orders from Dick Cheney and because of the trauma, can't recall what happened. You don't need a program to know from which side of the fence either of these views came from, even though nobody actually knows what happened.

This site, and others like it, on both sides of the political spectrum, are used by professional political operatives of all stripes to serve as ad hoc polling, and they are effective. A lot of money has been spent maintaining them for that very reason; that's why they were created.

You should be flattered, as I am sure that your post has been analyzed and commented on by committees from both of the major American parties.

With that in mind, try to put yourself in their place: Team R decides to cherry-pick all the "Bush is Hitler, Amerikka is Pre-Nazi Germany and that Amerikka is committing genocide on the Iraqi people, using jackbooted mercenary thugs, etc, etc" postings, to show the world (and with the Internet, that is literally true and very important to remember, especially when people post disparaging remarks about our 'third-rate allies' and the 'coalition of the stupid', for example)

While I am not debating the veracity of any of those memes, you have to understand that there are a lot of people out there who find that sort of comparison repugnant and the pros on Team R can exploit that. Play devil's advocate with yourself: how would you exploit that sentiment? If professional advertising people can convince you that you're suddenly going to have the opportunity for sex with a beautiful supermodel the minute you leave the house with your new hair weave, how hard would it be to convince people that what you consider politically progressive equals anti-American?

However, Team R has their disabilities also: folks who think that life starts the minute you hold hands and that some supernatural entity 'beyond the galaxyyyyyyy" has an interest and affect on the everyday life of all people on this planet, and that as of Tue 23 Oct 2007, our planet will celebrate its 6010th birthday.

In the meantime, Team D has to find a way to exploit those sort of postings and the most effective way is to instill FEAR into people: "Hey, look at this crazy shit - Do you want fundy nut jobs like this running the show? And our President kisses their asses!"

The other side uses the same method, and you're going to have to accept that even a well-thought out, well-written posting such as yours can be framed in such a way so as to alienate several thousand people by the other side. People who vote.

The Democratic leadership has grabbed a Tiger by the tail, and like all elites, there is a big disconnect between them and their base. They have been surprised by the depth of emotion and determination of the people they claim to represent, and they're not sure what to do about it.

People want us out of Iraq; we still have troops in Kosovo, shouldn't they come home, also?

We want a national health care scheme, but nobody says anything about encouraging the formation of a government-type Health Care Workers Union, along the lines of other federal workers. That's glaring; isn't Labor supposed to be one of the pillars of the Democratic party? And here you have millions and millions of Health Care Workers, from Nurses to X-Ray Technicians that deserve representation. (ask a nurse: Hey, how about them doctors, eh?)

On the other side, all they have to do is bring up Roe Vs Wade, or Same-sex marriages, things some people find highly offensive, and guaranteed to elicit an emotional response and thereby encircle the wagons.

It boils down to this: anything you post (small 'y' as in the posters themselves) can and I guarantee, will be used against You (large 'Y', as in those folks with a progressive bent).

You have a very plain and clear choice: Hold your nose and vote Democratic, whoever the candidate is, or the Republican side, who have the luxury of playing rope-a-dope at the moment is going to the White House in 2008. It is that simple.

In fact, prior to the general election, I predict that there are going to be a lot of websites shut down because of a 'high volume of traffic' or 'hacking' and that their archives will be unreachable. It will be a strategically defensive move, and will make perfect sense in the context of the election.

Think about it: would you seriously want your words, carefully selected and taken out of context, to be used to show our side hates America and put Guiliani in the White House?

You have to ask yourself: Am I committed enough to think strategically, or does getting an opportunity to vent give me enough satisfaction?

[arendt]

112. Your very first post! I am honored. Seriously. And it is a very deep, intelligent post...

Welcome to DU.

Your post appeals to me on so many levels:

1) it is very pragmatic, unemotional, rational logical. A breath of fresh air, a zen instant to stop and reflect.

2) It tells the truth about how this board fits into politics. That is a truth that rarely gets told. Not that anyone who isn't already aware of it will notice it this far down a day-old thread. But, I notice it; and I thank you.

There are a few things that bear further scrutiny.

1) I really doubt that what I say is analyzed by the politicos. My stuff is so fricking academic that it might as well be a thesis on Sanskrit deities. Come on, show me an average voter who can give a working definition of sophistry.

2) No matter what I do, other than completely shut up, my OP demonstrates that everything I say WILL BE taken out of context. So, by posting about meta-politics, i.e. sophistry, I try to avoid the trap you mention.

3) Yours is the third post directed to me that encourages me to "surrender to the inevitable". Here is about as far as my thinking has gotten in that direction. The only way I will surrender to the inevitable is if I am allowed to say, wear on my clothing, put in a sign on my lawn:

I think Hillary is the worst thing that could happen to America, except for the GOP candidate. The corporate rigged elections suck. And, I have no choice in the matter. My symbol in this stinking election is the clothes-pin on my nose.

Do you think the politicos could live with that kind of "support"? Because I will be damned if I will say anything but the truth.

-----

Anyway, thanks for the marvelous post. Please continue in the same veing. (You could do with a little spell checking, as the post seemed to have a few editing mistakes.)

arendt

[Syntheto]

121. Thank you for replying in the same vein.

It is greatly appreciated.

You are wrong in your assertion that your posts are very unlikely to be read by the professional political establishment.

Certainly, we all know that there are people who have the job of perusing political Internet postings of all flavors and then render them into a general "climate" and so on, and that they are probably paid pretty well for that service, especially now when the election cycle is beginning to turn hot. Multi media advertisement campaigns, whether for a new product or for a candidate are expensive.

Please don't take offense when the assertion is made that successful politics are, by necessity, cold-blooded and devoid of emotion. Evoking and provoking emotion is the strategy, and yes, it is cynical; nothing is more so, except organized religion, and for most of human history, that was the political establishment.

Take the boxing analogy: One of Muhammed Ali's favorite tricks was to insult his opponent, his mother, his heritage, even (gasp) his choice of beer; trying to get the other guy emotional to the point where rage would overtake training and analysis. Maybe I'm showing my age here, but I remember the first incarnation of George Foreman, the young, terrifying giant, backing Ali up against the ropes and pounding him with not only the kitchen, but the upstairs bathroom sink, also. Whenever Big George would falter, Ali would mouth something else off to him, and Foreman would attack with a frenzied vengeance.

The result? After awhile, George couldn't even lift his arms, with the predictable result of Ali winning the bout, coming off the ropes and dropping the big guy.

A lot of money changed hands over that, because the "climate" was that nobody, not even Ali, could withstand the onslaught of Big George.

Cynical, yes, but also strategically sound is the policy of using politically-orientated websites as ad-hoc polls that can be accessed and interpreted in real-time. The situation with the Congress starting to backpedal a bit on the insistence that Turkey admit culpability in the matter of the Armenian diaspora and genocide is the latest case in point. Why on earth would they do that?

It stands to reason that the "climate" was interpreted as unfavorable to the original approach.

Here is the kicker: in the general "climate", it is a given that since 2006, "Congress" is entirely Democratic. Therefore, negative publicity about the Turkish/Armenian talking point came to rest squarely on the doorstep of the Democrats, and not Congress, per se. That was a coup, and let's Republican members of Congress kick back and glide along.

There are words that evoke certain responses, and are used to do just that.

Imagine a guy who works at the Caterpillar plant in DeKalb, Illinois. He makes 47 K a year, say, and that includes some overtime. He's been there twenty years. There's a GMC truck outside with a nine-inch lift kit. While not a farmer himself, he went to a school with a bunch of kids who were, and his best friend took over the 500 acre family farm when his father was put in the nursing home. There's a pig roast there every year, and then it's deer season, and both men register for gun and bow licenses. This fellow, call him "Bubba", received an associate's degree in welding from the local junior college and then spent three years in the Army, assigned to the motor pool, and served in 1991 over in Iraq.

He's married, his wife works part-time as a librarian at that same Junior College in town and he's got three kids, two boys and a girl. The oldest boy has been playing football since he was seven in the Pee Wee leagues.

Okay, thanks for wading through all that. My point is, this guy doesn't believe in Same sex marriage, and he is against abortion, and has contributed to several Pro Life organizations. He owns five guns, including a .22 caliber semiautomatic rifle that he converted over to fully automatic to "hunt rabbits" with.

He has an inordinate pride in America, and of being American. He flies an American flag from his truck antennae and has a decal in the rear window that shows Calvin urinating on a caricature of Osama bin Laden.

This isn't necessarily autobiographical, but what if it was? Just by describing such a person, what would your attitude be towards them? What would your attitude be to towards this post in general, and me in particular?

Would such a guy merely be labeled "redneck"? According to the parlance of the current political "climate", that would automatically make him a racist, sexist, war-mongering Bush lover all rolled up in one word, and there are cynical people in the professional political establishment who would play on that, even though this character's political beliefs were never mentioned.

There is more of a likelihood that if you were broke down on the side of the road out in the boonies and he came along, he would pull over, help you out, get on his cellphone and call ahead to the garage to give you a tow, rather than flip you off because of your Gore-Edwards in 2004 sticker. He might recommend the best diner in town for a country breakfast or a good garage. Would he ignore you because you were Black, or would it be because he was running late while picking up his four year old daughter from preschool? Maybe he would.

Then again, he might not. People are different. They're unique. All we can do is wait and see with as open of a mind as we can manage.

But, should such a person be considered American? More to the point, should such a person be considered the Face of America? That's the million dollar question, and it really gets to the point of what political strategy is all about. As an academic, you might feel embarrassed to have our friend Bubba be the first thing a mechanical engineer in Osaka, Japan thinks about when the word "American" is flashed across the screen.

From the other side, somebody such as our mythical "Bubba", here, might interpret the word "academic", as in a profession, as tweedy, effete wannabe socialists who despise America (specifically, Bubba's socioeconomic class) and when Team R orchestrates a selective linkfest that shows postings that reinforce that stereotype, what sort of effect do you think that will have?

What little I understand about the Buddhist approach dovetails into what Malcolm Gladwell discussed in his book "Blink": there is a precognitive function in the human awareness system that has been programmed from birth by our experiences and these develop, over time and through reinforcement, to become unthinking assumptions and emotional, physiological responses that can be triggered merely by words and images. The best documentary I have ever seen, "The Century of Self", laid that out very well and explicitly.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with idealism! It is the yeast that leavens the political process.

However, the bakers, while creating the work of art that they have envisioned, still have to deal with the mechanics of following the recipe and lighting the stove.

By becoming the irate patron who demands that their slice of cheesecake be taken back because it doesn't look like the picture in the menu is unrealistic and does the baker a disservice.

All I would ask anyone here is to read my description of Bubba, and be honest about how they initially reacted, not as a plea for understanding of such a character, but as a step towards developing an insight as to how easily it is to manipulate people's emotional responses with a few deft strokes.

We should be proselytizing, and by using these same tools and strategies, convince people of the correctness of progressive thought.

A lot of people will read that America is proto-fascist and take affront, not because it's not true, but because they will take it personally, just as they have been programmed to do. As I asked rhetorically, would you really want to see your words distorted and used by somebody on the other side as an illustration of what's wrong with the progressive world view?

Sorry for all the mixed metaphors, but there you go. No time for spell-check, either - She-who-must-not-be-named is wandering the halls and checking the cubes for slackers, so I must depart the ether and get back to moving the stack of papers from one side of my desk to the other.

[tom_paine]

119. Counter-point: what is the point of self-censorship against relentless propaganda?

First I would like to say Welcome to DU, and that your post makes a great deal of sense and is very thought-provoking. A dilly of a 1st Post :toast: and I wish you many more.

However, I have a basic disagreement with you which we likely won't agree on no matter how much we debate, but I would just like to bring it up and maybe provoke some thoughts in you as you have in me.

My disagreement is not with what you say in principle, but against what kind of group (click on my sigline link for a synopsis of two decades of scientific research that more eloquently states my point better than I ever could myself) with what kind of principles?

To paraphrase Ho Chi Minh or whoever said this: "The nonviolence of Ghandi never could have worked against Hitler's Germans, they would simply have rolled over him with their tanks and moved on."

To use the Nazis as analog of extreme Nazi facsism, used to compare to our own simley face Bushie facsism that still is not yet even fully formed, but who are nearly IDENTICAL (yes, I said it) if only in terms of their frequency of lies and use of The Big Lie: The opponents of the Nazis knew they were going to be attacked and smeared NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAID OR DID.

That is the entire point. Thinking strategically in one time and place, translates into shameful fear and tragic self-censorship in another. Thinking strategically is all well and good in a strong and healthy democratic-republic with a free, vigorous, and independent press. In such a time and place, your advice is sage and should be heeded wholeheartedly.

But here in Bush-Occupied America, which is not and has not the things I spoke of in the last paragraph, it is another matter.

Like the Jews of 1930s Germany, we KNOW the Busies are going to attack us (non-violently, compared to the Nazis, but attacked with as much vitriol and demonization verbally, all the way up to though usually not including dehumanization...remember the famous subliminal DemocRATS commercial, approved by the RNC and the Bushies?) no matter what we do.

http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/diebow.htm

Caption: "The Jew in his element: With Blacks in a Parisian night club. The Jew bring people the glittering world of perversion as a way of unnerving and enslaving them. He seems to worry as little about it as the rats worry about the plague they carry." (p. 97 of The Eternal Jew)

If we quail and cower before them, worry what we say and do, then Bin Laden and Bush have BOTH won, and we will get NOTHING but derision, scorn, demonization and dehumanization from Limboreillhannicoulter ANYWAY and they are LEGION, they drive our national dialogue (as shameful as that is, is is nearly 100% true (rare exceptions these days).

So we have a choice: to worry and fret and self-censor, even as the light coming up the tunnel is more clearly a 600-ton freight train every day, KNOWING that the Bushies will not diminish or abate their attacks in the least, KNOWING that even if we purse our lips in silence to "think strategically" that Limboreillhannicoulter and the rest of the Bushigandists will invent something ELSE to say that:

Liberals are traitors to America
Jews are traitors to Germany

Liberals always side with America's enemies
Jews always side with Germany's enemies

Liberals are Communists
Jews are Communists

America and the world would be a better place without Liberals and Liberalism
Germany and the world would be a better place without Jews and Judaism

and on and on and on...this, even standing alone, is no piffling tiny similarity, but a deep concordance of philosphies that is not superificial in the least but speaks tro the core of each movement's vile 'soul'.

As the Nazis will attack the Jews no matter how much the Jews try to purse their lips and stay silent and unoffensive, so will the Bushies...thus I choose to speak out and not "think strategically" becuase no matter WHAT I try to do or say, the Bushies will attack something else, or take something out of context or simply fabricate something out of whole cloth, as they have not just been known to do but are perhaps as famous for that aspect of them and their "media operation" as the Nazis were for theirs.

And if you think this is purile ranting, then perhaps you should read not just the book that I linked to in my signature, but try these on, as well.

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/jaspers02.htm
http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html
http://www.amazon.com/Will-Bear-Witness-1933-1941-Paperbacks/dp/0375753788

Again I say...welcome to DU :toast: and a fantastic 1st post, which I both agree with for it's calm wisdom and sage advice, while at the same time vehemently disgreeing with that common sense and good advice because it is not relevant to the time and place we live in, nor to the group of people and their followers that we face.

Life is funny, isn't it?

[Syntheto]

122. I am humbled by your response to my post, and again

I appreciate the civility.

I can't give you a quick, off-the-cuff response, because I want to take some time to digest the essence of your post without slipping into the easy glib response, which, unfortunately, I am prone to do.

Would Nazi Germany have been able to implement their ethnic cleansing if there had been a Jewish autonomous zone in Silesia, with their own 1930's version of the IDF, heavy weapons and all? More importantly, would the Nazis have attacked such a territory, when by their own rhetoric, the Jews would have known that they had nothing to lose? What would have happened if all the Jewish scientists who, in our timeline had emigrated to America to work on the Manhattan project, instead worked on a Silesian atomic weapon, and let the Nazis know they had it?

That's a valid question, because ultimately, all political power does come from a gun, crossbow or the point of a gladius hispana, to badly paraphrase Mao.

The decision for a lot of people on both sides of the fence to make is whether the present political rhetorical climate calls for actual revolution, as in killing other people who don't believe the way you do, with the conviction that if you don't, they'll kill you, or if it's just cynical manipulation by an entrenched political elite who share power with each other every four years.

I apologize to those fire-eaters who are stridently idealistic, and I admire them for pushing the envelope of discourse, but what we have here is definitely a failure to communicate as a nation, and it behooves the powers that be to keep it that way.

While any normal person feels distaste towards the cynical manipulation of the masses, is revolution really the answer? If you're not sufficiently armed or have some aspect of military might on your side, all you are going to create is martyrs and such a climate of fear so as to welcome a real police state that patrols Main street in M1 Abrams, Humvees and busts your door down at 2.00 am to arrest your 16 year old son, whom you never see again.

Through the bylaws of this site, just as like with many others, everyone just preaches to the choir; arguments here are about style, not substance. The other side is like that, too. When you add the impersonality and anonymity of the Internet, an 80 year old grandmother might refer to you as some fucking idiot, whereas she might be the sweetest lady you ever met in person and would never dream of using that kind of language.

In many ways, the Internet, the blogsphere as well as these political sites all seem to be fertile ground for the CB effect; you know, back in the 70's, everybody had a CB radio and the handle, complete with implicit backstory: Hotbabe might really weigh 300 pounds, but with a voice that would melt cold-rolled steel (hehheh, sorry - she works at one of the 1-900 numbers now) Jungle Stud might actually be a 65 year old accountant with shiny pate and thick glasses.

Violence, and that is what the ultimate outcome is, if left unchecked, is not easy to control, especially if you're predisposed to think the worst, and that it's you or them.

If I have any criticism at all it's for the folks who are in a position to throttle the rhetoric down, but haven't done so yet. Shame on them.

By the way, I'm a big fan of Harry Turtledove (could ya tell? LOL) and in one of his short stories, he addressed that concept of Ghandi's concerning the probably reaction of a Nazi occupation force to the policy of nonviolent protest. Very good story. Rules Brittanica was his his best, in my opinion.

Well, back to the mines.

[tom_paine]

124. No one is advocating violence. Awareness of a grim situation,

particularly one in which it is still possible to correct within the system, does not equate to a call for revolution.

General Strikes, perhaps, and other forms of civil disobedience surely, but all-out revolution will not improve the situation for anyone, and probably make things that much worse.

I like the idea of the "CB effect", and you are absolutely correct about the powers of anonymization and what it does to unleash people's inhibitions (that's a subject that deserves it's own thread). Ironically, the rise of the Bushie Surveillance State means that NONE of us are anonymous...that damned near anyone anytime, ESPECIALLY if they are Bushies with "connection" can find out who is who, where we live, and every fucking thing about us. Cost $25-$50 on line (Bushies in law enforcement get to abuse their computer systems for free), two mouse clicks and you'd be there.

Now there's some funny irony. NONE of us are anonymous to anyone with half a notion to find out.

The problem for me with "toning down the rhetoric" is this: I was stationed and then lived in N. California in the 80s around the time that Limbaugh was taking off.

Due to my lifelong fascination with the mechanism of totalitarianism and how it works (I am Jewish and my great-uncles were murdered by Stalin), I almost immediately recognized Limbaugh for what he was, speaking in very strident, similar, absolutist tones that were very reminiscent of the way the KKK spoke, the way the Nazis spoke of their enemies, just couched in nonracial tones. I also noticed that he blatantly lied much more often than any who came before him, I mean that I have seen in my lifetime. He lied again and again like a Soviet Communist and suffered no setbacks becuase of it. Wholesale and willful fabrication used to be frowned upon in public life, I remember (not that it wasn't practiced, but people tried to HIDE it when they did it, not proudly deny that which was already factually priven to be true).

But I digress. So I happened to be at Ground Zero, as it were, for what could legitimately be termed as one of the "genesis moments" of the New Totalitarianism (it doesn't have a name yet because it is still hiding it's true self) and I partly recognized it for what it was then.

Very partly. Could I have conceived of ANY of the hundreds of aspects of the bush False Reality Bubble? No way. But something was wrong and getting wronger, I could tell.

But I remained silent, thinking strategically, as it were, and enjoying the naive innocence that It Can't Happen Here (HINT: Totalitarianism can happen ANYWHERE in a multitude of guises) and life in general during the sunny Last Days of the Old American Republic.

In the mid and late 90s, the hounding of Clinton as well as the way impeachment was carried through to the bitter end in spite of it's 33% approval rating and against the Will of a landslide proportion of the American People...that indicated we had reached a new level. The whole episode reminded uncomofortably of an episode of "I, Claudius".

Again, I do not wish to overstate how much I had caught on by even then. I still could not yet see the shape of The Mighty Wurlitzer of the Bush Party-Loyal Sub-Media and Lie Laundry.

I could not yet see how reality had become so easy to re-engineer, if like the Bushies, you had a billion dollars worth of propaganda tools in place and your opposition was clueless to your ultimate intentions of permanently netutrlizing them. And I do not mean violently - in my opinion the Democratic Party is perilously close to being permanently neutralized already, and all that was required was a couple of mysterious plane crashes and a few envelopes of Made in the USA Anthrax in the mail.

I couldn't imagine poll-freeping, and MSM uniformly repeating a Bushie Lie as fact over and over and over, even long after those lies had been debunked. (Swift Boaters and Al Gore Invented the Internet, to name two of dozens) There are a hundred other asepcts of the Bushie's extraConstitutional assaults one every aspect that keep America free, but this post is already unbearably long.

But it took, literally 15 years of caution and watching and thinking as you do to get to where I am now. It's not something I hastily arrived at overnight.

That doesn't make me more correct than you. I could still be wrong and I hope that I am.

Again, welcome to DU, and here's to my hopefully being wrong and full of the melodramatic vapors, as it were.

[Syntheto]

127. I don't think that you're wrong to worry

But, the whole paradigm works both ways; it has to. The biggest hurdle to an American consensus is freedom of choice, and by that each one of us can go to a multitude of websites that disseminate information on current events, tailored to each of our individual tastes.

A thought exercise: what sort of postings would 19th Century Americans have made, just prior to the Civil War, had the Internet existed? I would dare say that most people then would've been more conversant about what the Constitution than we are, since the document was barely, what? 80 something years old.

We discuss Roe vs Wade; they were dealing with the issue of chattel slavery, which was foremost in everyone's mind, and which nobody had the guts to deal with since America's inception, preferring to pass the problem on to future generations.

While there were many well-meaning people who sought to end slavery, strictly on humanitarian grounds, there were others who resented the Southern economic system which wouldn't allow a white journeyman 'mechanic' or steamfitter, cooper, whatever to make a living in a city such as, say, Charleston, South Carolina, because slaveowners would rent their enslaved journeymen out for a pittance and still make a profit.

To Yankee businessmen, this was undercutting their capitalistic system and making their goods and services uncompetitive, and had nothing to do with the inhumanity of the chattel system.

As a side, think of Albert Speer bragging about the productivity of the Nordhausen rocket works, which outproduced even General Motors and Ford. Yeah, well, with slave labor.

As things stood, yellow journalism, then as now, inflamed passions.

Can you imagine how John Brown might have posted and how prolific he might've been? Do you think John Brown would've posted to the freerepublic site or here?

If the Internet had been around in 1857, the Civil War would have started in 1858, just by virtue of the real-time nature of the technology and the feeling that the country had finally come to a point where there was no common ground.

There can only be compromise or revolution. Civil discourse or war. It's either that, or we're all going to be reduced to merely posting flaming diatribes and exercising the one right that renders most Americans 'relatively harmless', namely, the right to bitch, as in; "Fucking repukes/rats! They're all Fascists/Communists. Well, back to work, gotta pay the mortgage; Hey, look at me! I'm politically active! I bought a T-shirt that says Fuck Bush/Hillary and I need to go down to the Post Office to pick it up. Power to the people, right on."

It's as if political ideology in this country has been reduced to the Red Team or the Blue Team, as in a big football game.

However, it's not our fault. We have been programmed by both sides (surely there are more dimensions than left and right?) and we have our own website clubs where we can hang out and talk bad about the other folks.

Americans are, by and large, no matter what they're politically affiliation, gender, level of education, what have you, a nation of smug peasants; fat, dumb and happy to keep it that way, while the country's political elites work hard to maintain that status quo.

Let your intellect be your guide. Part of Bobby Fischer's schtick was to annoy opponents and unnerve them, just as the aforementioned strategy of Muhammed Ali. I want to win. I want to define the terms. Limbaugh and his ilk on both sides are political entertainers; you see him as a Republican mouthpiece, I see the guy as a very wealthy man who made the shrewd choice a long time ago to throw red meat out to the folks who were starving for it. You don't even know how he votes! For all any of us knows, Rush Limbaugh could have voted a straight Democratic ticket for the last twenty years! Now wouldn't that be a hoot!?

Sorry, I'm laughing out loud on my end with that visual imagery.

[tom_paine]

129. Not to be a kiss-ass, and I don't say this to many people but YOU, sir

are one hell of an addition to DU, in my opinion. :toast:

I have often myself thought of penning an article entitled "The Internet: Bringing Stonewall Jackson and John Brown together in 1851."

So as you see I have also given that aspect of it some thought, and your question about John Brown posting here or FR also raises the "mobile nature" of the Left/Center/Right scale over history.

Back in 1776, a Crazy Liberal Moonat was one who thought the loutish commoners should rule ourselves through representatuve government.

Back in 1851, a person was a Crazy Liberal Moonbat to suggest that slavery should be abolished.

Today, such a 1851 'liberal' who also very likely still believed in the inherent inferiority of African-Americans, would be a knuckle-dragging Bushie in the here and now.

I maintain Brown would gravitate to the religiousity of the Bushies, but when he saw their true feelings towards African-Americans, and the transpranet protestations that they were believers in "equality" he would have been repelled.

Stonewall Jackson, too, would gravitate to FR, and would love most of it, but when he ran into the idea of unquestioning servility to the Leader as expressed by the Unitary Executive, HE would have been repelled. As you said, his great-grandparents had JUST fought to end that sort of thing.

But the idea of Stonewall Jackson and John Brown meeting every day in an 1851 chat room and what would they say :grr: :mad: :mad: :grr: :grr: :mad: :grr: :mad: :grr: :grr: is a provocative and relevant question as a concept.

You are correct about the programming of our thinking, although I do disagree that both sides are equally to blame. Does that make the Democrats faultless? Of course not. But I cannot blame them equally for creating today's rhetorically toxic environment, not even close. At worst they are guilty of failing to notice it and counter it before it cemented into place and became "convetional wisdom".

I also strongly disagree with your comment

There can only be compromise or revolution. Civil discourse or war. It's either that, or we're all going to be reduced to merely posting flaming diatribes and exercising the one right that renders most Americans 'relatively harmless', namely, the right to bitch,

If that were true...then what were the 60s? How did Yeltsin stave off the Commie Coup in 1992? All out war or civil discourse? I trust I have made my point on that. If you are right about that, then we are totally fucked and there is NO HOPE. Either take the chains or fight.

I do not believe that is the case, and if I am overstating the danger, it never will be.

As to how I see Limbaugh, I would only agree with that if his "schtick" did not lie about and hurt so many people. There is a big difference, IMHO, between a guy like Limbaugh and Howard Stern, who is what you ascribe to Limbaugh.

Howard Stern's schtick is juvenile crap without any deeper effect or significance on America Life beyond pushing the envelope of potty-mouth and taste a bit.

Rush Limbaugh schtick literally works in concert with other aspects of the Bush Lie Machine to get messages out in a disciplined and methodical fashion, usually with the intent to deceive or mislead, to hurt the weak and powerless while stregnthening and enriching the already strong and rich. Ultimately, he is part of a co-ordinated Propaganda Machine that may well have destroyed the greatest nation in human history, for all our faults and flaws and Native American genocides in our past.

Even IF Limabugh started out like Stern in the way you say, he surely hasn't been that for many years.

How many people has Howard Stern hurt directly with his bullshit? A few dozen? A hundred, even? A thousand?

It could be reasonably argued that Limbaugh has notched to his belt his portion of a million dead Iraqis and approaching 4,000 dead American soldiers, and all of the American who have been hurt by Bushie thefts, New Orleans, as Limba screeched hate a the dying and trying to mislead and obfuscate the blame for what was likely planned negligence (Louisiana goes Red in 2008 - Mission Accomplished Katrina and "Response", cry the Bushies when they think no one is listening).

I must vehemently disagree with your view of Limbaugh, who is not by his actions deserving of such charity.

[Syntheto]

132. I understand where your coming from

and I apologize if I'm approaching this with too much levity, and I hope that it's not offensive to anybody.

However, I have to respectfully push the gist of my characterization of Limbaugh.

Think of Esteban, the guitarist with the the hat, ponytail and sunglasses. Easily caricatured. Think of Little Stevie Van Zant in his role as guitarist for the E-Street band, with his trademark headband, same thing; think of Bill Gates in his wireframe glasses and propensity to wearing Mr. Rogers' type absent-minded professor attire. I doubt if I would recognize Bill Gates with contacts, T-shirt and a leather jacket, and his hair slicked back, would you?

Remember Mr. T? Would you recognize him with a full head of hair, glasses and the unofficial uniform of the Nation of Islam, a dark suit and tie? How about the guys from ZZ Top without their beards?

Would you recognize Pamela Anderson with no makeup and her silicon enhancements removed? In a lot of ways, Ms. Anderson is just a continuation of a character Norma Jean Dougherty came up with when she adopted the persona of Marilyn Monroe. Think of another Marilyn, the Manson one, out cutting the grass without his creepy contact lenses and fake boobed body suit, and stopping to toss a baseball around with his kids.

They're characters, and the people behind them have created them deliberately to make money.

Do you really feel that Limbaugh is committed enough to whatever Republican venture that he would do it for free? I'm sorry, but I don't believe so.

Is Mick Jagger complicit in the Hell's Angel murder in 1968 at Atamont?

Was Tokyo Rose responsible for the slaughter on Iwo Jima?

I mean, the list goes on. Limbaugh, like a lot of people, put their own interests first. The cigar, the weird ties, the bombastic ranting, with never a positive thing to say about the other side in all his years of broadcasting. That's just too pat, too black and white, and yes, too simplistic.

Do you think that his listeners have made him what he is by proclaiming the second coming of Conservatism? I submit that those who call him Goebbels incarnate have given him the key to the outhouse.

The only person who was effective, to any extent, disarming Limbaugh was Obama, who publicly laughed off the whole silly, if offensive "Magic Negro" bit (no matter what his personal feelings) and attributed it to Limbaugh being, as I said, a political entertainer, and it didn't mean anything.

That came and went, but I took note that Limbaugh couldn't say anything about it. I mean, what could he say: "Obama was incensed, but like all Democrats, he hid his real feelings, because that's what those people do."? Even his own herd following would've looked askance at that.

By getting angry and offended and making no bones about it, Limbaugh is able to say: "See, the libs are frothing at the mouth, they have no sense of humor, ect, etc ad nauseum."

The best response would have been to equate Limbaugh's so-called sense of humor with the poetry written on bathroom stalls, rather than to attribute serious sociopolitical thought to it.

I think it's time to change tactics with the guy, because the left gives him, (and by that, I mean his research staff) the hammer he uses to beat them with, right on a silver platter.

He should be marginalized, not demonized, because all that does is give his organization power, and frankly pay his rather large salary.

He should be regarded as a non person and ignored. He is a cardboard cutout that represents a point of focus, and it tickles his listeners to no end to be given a link to somewhere that illustrates how much he baited someone on the left. Some of them hope that it's that smart ass college kid who thinks we live in fascist Germany, calls our elected president Chimpy McHitler and doesn't know when to shut up.

Ironically, some of those same people would be the first to whip out their checkbooks for this same person if he/she were collecting for clothes and toys for orphaned Iraqi children, as long as they didn't have to listen to a harangue about how Bush and Cheney are responsible.

What is more important, actual positive action, such as voting, organizing for refugee relief, collecting money and signatures, or getting your point across, and refusing to let up when you hit an impasse?

What would impress an Iraqi more, a donation of food, clothing, shoes and a Barbie doll for his little girl, or a declaration that, hey, I wrote an indignant, obscenity-laced diatribe that got posted on the Web, calling Bush and Cheney Nazis; I've got your back, Abdul?

For Limbaugh to disappear, we need to regard him as invisible. He should be ignored. Products sold by his advertisers should be boycotted. Affiliate stations carrying his show should be tuned out with a polite note as to why.

Remember the old saying : "America, love it or leave it?" Why does the Left always take that as an affront? Why can't that be our motto, and turn it back on the right? Hey, if you don't like the way our multicultural society is going, then leave."

I'm an American, and I'm proud of it. America is about the people, not any administration. Look at Russia, it's generally agreed that Stalin was a monster, yet the people rose up to defend their country; the land, the concept of Russia, certainly not for Stalin and the ruling clique; it was despite them.

Whew, I'm getting a nosebleed from standing on this soapbox, and the John Phillips Sousa music is giving me a headache.

Anyway, call me the Rambling Man, because I sure have done a bit of that in this post.

I would very much like to see a post from you concerning an exchange of blog posting between John Brown and Stonewall Jackson. I can't imagine anything that would compare today, even at the present level of rhetoric.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. Welcome to DU by the way

now let me counter with a real history, and not Harry (by the way, we're fans)

Many of the Jews at the Warzaw Ghetto KNEW by 1943 what their fate would be when they were put in trains and sent further to the East. Many of the leaders of the resistance knew that it was futile, and hoped the poles would join them but did not count on it


They still decided to pick up arms, even though their elders counseled patience. Hell, some of the leaders of the Government were in denial all the way ot the showers.

But the young ones... strange I am no longer young. refused

They knew what was happening. They argued their point in meetings, and finally they rose up

Were they crushed? Yes

Did the Poles join them? No

My point is that sometimes what is happening means you need to take action even in the face of overwhelming odds.

Oh and in no way am I saying we are in the same situation and there are trains running to the East... full of people who never come back

But we are in a situation where our leaders have been neutralized and where they still believe they can negotiate. In this sense we are closer to the situation of the Italian legislature, who kept negotiating, or rather trying to, with Mussolini. In effect we are at a crossroads in history. We are going down the same playbook of any totalitarian state. Nazi germany is the most often cited, mostly due to knowledge, but the METHOD is the same, whether we are talking of Russia, CHile, Paraguay, Italy, Spain... et al.

The method is the same, even if the window dressing, aka the details are not.

That is why at this point I would counsel against being silent...

It is to a point simple, you do not negotiate with bullies. Authoritarians are bullies.

;-)

[Syntheto]

133. Thank you,

it took me awhile to reply, as I had to stop and get gas on my way home. $2.46 in the suburbs North of St. Louis.

I won't try to hold forth on the historical events surrounding the Warsaw Uprising; all I know is what I've read and seen on the History Channel.

However, having said that, and knowing what you do, do you think that the Jews of Warsaw, knowing that they were doomed, and by that, I mean understanding that fact, would have detonated an atomic weapon had they had it, once enough German troops had entered the city?

Frankly, I know I would have.

Harry is my favorite author. So much in history seems to pivot on smaller events. What if Rommel hadn't gone home for his wife's birthday? What if the Germans had reached Antwerp during the events of December 1944? What if the Germans hadn't gone for the oil fields in the Ukraine, but pushed on to Moscow? What if Roosevelt had given the go-ahead to use poison gas on Okinawa after the carnage of the Pacific Island campaigns and decided to forgo the Geneva convention? What if the Germans had adopted a policy of incorporating Eastern European countries into the fold under Nazi domination, rather than follow a policy of enslaving the Slavs?

Conjecture is one thing, but we know all this in hindsight, and I realize this. I've read too much science fiction and fantasy, I suppose, especially alternative history.

We're making history right now. Only a coup will topple a government, and for that you need the military. I believe that our system works, and that sort of violence is not necessary. But change is only going to come from the inside, so there needs to be people elected to office with a clear idea of the direction we need to go, and also, hard-headed and yes, cynical enough to play the game.

If we don't win, they do, and winning should be the only point of focus. Obsession with cartoon characters such as Limbaugh is nonproductive.

[Aviation Pro]

109. "The rules must be completely stable."

But mankind is inherently unstable. Those who adhere to the meme that, "I am an animal of complete logic," - like some freaking Vulcan out of Star Trek - only get it half-right, they are in fact an irrational animals who are completely guided by emotion. And rules or laws are always broken by those who feel they can get away with it.

Thus our fascist, Nazi-like administration.

[Blue_Tires]

111. ttt

[D23MIURG23]

113. Yeah this is familiar, and obnoxious.

Although to be honest most people who engage in it here aren't actually that good at it.

[GTurck]

114. Demanding purity

I am sorry if this offends all the boomer's who read DU but I am a member of the slot generation between you and those who fought in WWII so I have seen and experienced many things differently from you. One of those things is not to expect purity in anything and one of boomers greatest failings is believing in purity from everyone in every instance. You were brought up totally on Television programmed to your cadre and sanitized beyond all recognition and now you are carrying that into your political thinking.
Nancygreggs put it well last week with her journal on not voting for anyone who isn't exactly like her. That would be purity - maybe. You see none of us can really be pure in all our actions, words, or thoughts and that was why "1984" was such a great horror to thinkers. We all fail at times. We all triumph at times.
Now I have not read this journal all the way through so I am not really certain what it is all about but I do know that double standards, sophistry, spin, and puritanism all come from the same place. "I am perfect and unless you meet my standard you have no right to speak."
Now isn't that exactly what the Bushies been saying these past 7 years? Where is the logic of progressives who use the same techniques as neo-cons? This should be a forum of open ideas and viewpoints which are respected as such.

[MedleyMisty]

120. Hmm - usually the sophists are the people using the "purity" attack

When I've seen it used on DU, it's always been in the "Shut up and fall in line and never think critically about anyone who says they're a Democrat again." argument. There is a wide gulf and a lot of gray between "I could never vote for anyone who ate meat at one point in their lives." and "You know, I'm not really sure about voting in the primary for someone who keeps voting for war resolutions and/or doesn't support single payer national health care and/or shows no signs of wanting to loosen the grip that corporations have on our society." The people who accuse others of being "purists" seem to want shut down both arguments and everything in between.

[GTurck]

134. We agree..

But I must add that today's would-be dictators/tyrants have been learning and watching just as we have. They are not Nazis, Fascists, or Communists in fact but a new permutation of the same impetus. Just recently at hnn.org a historian made this clear and I think we would be wise to heed his words. What is going down now is not exactly the same thing as what happened 70-90 years ago and we must beware that we don't miss one tree for all the others in the forest.
I think the current culture, political and social, in this country is very unhealthy. It is certainly not the country I envisioned for my children back in the 60's. No I was not a hippie but mainly an apolitical middle of the road sort of person who dreamed only that my children would have a better life. Now it is a country that I damn well am trying not to leave to my grandchildren. But we need a sane, motivated, and positive opposition to the drum beat of war, wealth, and fear.

[kineneb]

126. wow- lots of interesting posts, and my 2 cents...

(and some really good writing)... wishing I could use words like you folks... ah, the joys of being a musician and at the same time a visual thinker... shall I draw/paint a picture perhaps? (Goya or Picasso come to mind right now, or for music- Mozart's Requiem)

now onto my comments...

...on the Nazi analogy: same intent/trajectory, different situation

...no, we are not Weimar Germany with incredible inflation (yet), no we don't have the middle class rioting in the streets- shit, the US middle class doesn't even know how to riot... but don't we already fit Mussolini's definition of fascism? (government+corporations)

...of course history does not repeat exactly, but like Santayana says , if we don't learn from the past we will repeat it (my addition: ...in new and creative ways)...

...we are becoming "like" Good Germans: we are the "Good Americans" who think that US domestic/foreign policies are positive, instead realizing we are being screwed... the rest of the world is aware of what the Gov. has done in "our name" and with our tax dollars, and it ain't very "good" at all... and we have often turned a blind eye towards their pain...(recommended reading: Chalmers Johnson's Blowback series)

...to those who shout others down whether here or in the real world, I don't put them on "ignore", I just ignore them... sometimes I feel sorry for them, but I don't hate them... hate takes energy- the opposite of love is not hate but apathy, a total lack of caring... I have spent a lifetime learning not to hate my relatives; people I don't know don't bother me, no matter what they say...

...on the sophistry of some... different people have different levels of insight... many will never "get it" and some will only partially "get it"... others chose not to see what is going on, because it would destroy the internal world they have built... some of us have also spent a lifetime watching what goes on around us, so as to jump before the manure hits... some of the reaction is ingrained and some learned through the school of hard knocks... some people really are shallow...

sorry for the rambling, arendt, it was a good essay, and some of the replies were good too...

(and thank goodness for spellcheck)

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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