On this debate ...
Who knew that this excerpted quote from Andrew Sullivan would elicit so much anonymous ire?
So let's get right to the heart of the matter off the bat, and I'll begin with an admisison of my foolishness ... I thought Sullivan had a typo. I didn't read 'fascistic' but instead saw, honestly, 'fantastic.' My interest in this excerpt focused on the end of it and not the earlier part which I included solely for context. Had I done the smart thing and properly read it, I would have omitted that piece and said Sullivan had gone over-the-top.
I didn't. I skimmed the top. I made a dumb mistake.
And that leads us to something which fascinates me ... the obsession of those who are so eager to defend not the war, but the failed war policy of this particular president. It's an obsession over sementics, brushing aside the realities of the situation to instead belittle the opposition based on a verbal gaffe.
We saw it in 2004 over the infamous 'I voted for it before I voted against it' line. Arguably, that was a rather dumb sound bite, however it was true for John Kerry as it has been true for every elected offical since this nation's inception. Bills go through several processes of edits, compromises, amendments, etc., and sometimes someone votes for something because it's one thing on one day, but then opposes it the next day because it's something different.
This, to me, is common sense. This, to me, is how the world works. I can think of numerous projects I've worked on where I have not cared for them in the beginning, but begun to like them toward the end.
But we live in a world of sound bites, and those who defend the president's war policies seized on this moment ... focusing on a verbal quip rather than, say, the actual policies of the president.
And we find ourselves in the same place here. Our anonymous commenters jumped all over Sullivan (again, a conservative mind you) because he used, arguably, a ridiculous analogy to make an otherwise valid point. As noted, if I had read it more closely, I would have not included that passage and chided Sullivan as well.
But does that render the gist of his argument invalid? Of course not. Sullivan, ignoring the vast historical inaccuracies in the president's VFW speech, focused on the attempt to lay this mess of a war and occupation at the feet of those who merely said 'this policy isn't working, we need to try something else.'
In a world of grey, this president decided to paint in black-and-white and lump anyone who disagreed with his narrow worldview into one category, pushing conservatives like Sen. John Warner into the same camp with far-left liberals like Rep. Dennis Kucinich, cowardly hiding behind a brave, yet tired military to do so.
Dissent, then, was not permitted. Blind allegiance to the president's war policy was demanded, and those who disagreed with even the most minor of details were not merely traitors, but directly responsible for the deaths of our soldiers and the Iraqi people.
It's an insane argument for a wide variety of reasons, the least of which being that it ultimately results in the president of our nation openly accusing anyone who sees things differently an enemy of the state.
That is what offensive to me. That is what is inexcusable to me.
And folks chime in and say 'well, golly gee, so many folks have been so mean to him over the past few years.' Well, yes, that's true. And much of the rhetoric has been ridiculous, misleading and far too personal.
However, there is a marked difference between an activist group or a far-left blog making these ridiculous attacks and the president responding by throwing everyone not in his inner circle under the bus with historical falsehoods and showy bluster.
The president should be above that.
He should be able to draw from reason, logic and experience to present a defense of his policies and present them to the public. This one did not. He lashed out at not only anyone who voiced an alternative view, but also those like myself who have worked to accept the man's policies and positions in good faith.
Because, truth be told, I'm not for a massive drawdown from Iraq. I think there's much work left to be done there. My quibble is with how we're going about doing it and what additional measures - diplomatic and humanitarian - we are not currently employing to our best efforts.
To me at least, it's clear that the president doesn't particularly care about finding workable solutions or seeking out common sense answers. Bipartisianship is a word that he sees not as a proper route to find a just and proper compromise to best represent all citizens, but a means to entrap and weaken those he disagrees with.
It's a shame. Perhaps I gave him too much credit because it's obvious he didn't offer me any respect.
So let's get right to the heart of the matter off the bat, and I'll begin with an admisison of my foolishness ... I thought Sullivan had a typo. I didn't read 'fascistic' but instead saw, honestly, 'fantastic.' My interest in this excerpt focused on the end of it and not the earlier part which I included solely for context. Had I done the smart thing and properly read it, I would have omitted that piece and said Sullivan had gone over-the-top.
I didn't. I skimmed the top. I made a dumb mistake.
And that leads us to something which fascinates me ... the obsession of those who are so eager to defend not the war, but the failed war policy of this particular president. It's an obsession over sementics, brushing aside the realities of the situation to instead belittle the opposition based on a verbal gaffe.
We saw it in 2004 over the infamous 'I voted for it before I voted against it' line. Arguably, that was a rather dumb sound bite, however it was true for John Kerry as it has been true for every elected offical since this nation's inception. Bills go through several processes of edits, compromises, amendments, etc., and sometimes someone votes for something because it's one thing on one day, but then opposes it the next day because it's something different.
This, to me, is common sense. This, to me, is how the world works. I can think of numerous projects I've worked on where I have not cared for them in the beginning, but begun to like them toward the end.
But we live in a world of sound bites, and those who defend the president's war policies seized on this moment ... focusing on a verbal quip rather than, say, the actual policies of the president.
And we find ourselves in the same place here. Our anonymous commenters jumped all over Sullivan (again, a conservative mind you) because he used, arguably, a ridiculous analogy to make an otherwise valid point. As noted, if I had read it more closely, I would have not included that passage and chided Sullivan as well.
But does that render the gist of his argument invalid? Of course not. Sullivan, ignoring the vast historical inaccuracies in the president's VFW speech, focused on the attempt to lay this mess of a war and occupation at the feet of those who merely said 'this policy isn't working, we need to try something else.'
In a world of grey, this president decided to paint in black-and-white and lump anyone who disagreed with his narrow worldview into one category, pushing conservatives like Sen. John Warner into the same camp with far-left liberals like Rep. Dennis Kucinich, cowardly hiding behind a brave, yet tired military to do so.
Dissent, then, was not permitted. Blind allegiance to the president's war policy was demanded, and those who disagreed with even the most minor of details were not merely traitors, but directly responsible for the deaths of our soldiers and the Iraqi people.
It's an insane argument for a wide variety of reasons, the least of which being that it ultimately results in the president of our nation openly accusing anyone who sees things differently an enemy of the state.
That is what offensive to me. That is what is inexcusable to me.
And folks chime in and say 'well, golly gee, so many folks have been so mean to him over the past few years.' Well, yes, that's true. And much of the rhetoric has been ridiculous, misleading and far too personal.
However, there is a marked difference between an activist group or a far-left blog making these ridiculous attacks and the president responding by throwing everyone not in his inner circle under the bus with historical falsehoods and showy bluster.
The president should be above that.
He should be able to draw from reason, logic and experience to present a defense of his policies and present them to the public. This one did not. He lashed out at not only anyone who voiced an alternative view, but also those like myself who have worked to accept the man's policies and positions in good faith.
Because, truth be told, I'm not for a massive drawdown from Iraq. I think there's much work left to be done there. My quibble is with how we're going about doing it and what additional measures - diplomatic and humanitarian - we are not currently employing to our best efforts.
To me at least, it's clear that the president doesn't particularly care about finding workable solutions or seeking out common sense answers. Bipartisianship is a word that he sees not as a proper route to find a just and proper compromise to best represent all citizens, but a means to entrap and weaken those he disagrees with.
It's a shame. Perhaps I gave him too much credit because it's obvious he didn't offer me any respect.
posted by Jmac at 8:36 AM
4 Comments:
I don't think Sullivan was over the top.
I do look forward to a lively discussion with anyone who cares to explain to me what, exactly, is conservative about George W. Bush. How anyone could mistake Bush for a conservative is beyond me. They must be operating from a different definition of conservative.
I really wish I had my party back.
DECON
For what it's worth, Sully described a tactic as being "fascistic." He didn't call the President a fascist. I periodically do things that are foolish; that does not make me a fool. I don't think you owe anyone an apology.
Further, this administration certainly has shown fascistic tendencies, not the least of which include its continuing Nationalism, the dominance of the military, corporate cronyism and the increasing inseparability of religion and government.
If it sounds like a duck and walks like a duck...
Like I said, Dan, anyone who describes the Bush administration as "fascistic" might as well wear a sign that reads "Don't Take Me Seriously."
"Nationalism?" As opposed to what?
A "dominant military?" As opposed to what? Whose military would you prefer be dominate to ours?
I'm with Decon.
Also, nationalism as opposed to recognition of the transcendency of democracy. The terrible thing about democracy is that, once you allow other nations the right to their own sovereignty, they just might express their hatred of you and work against you. Hence why the United States has historically had difficulty with allowing other nations to express themselves democratically. Perhaps Decon can express what it means as a conservative to take seriously the sovereignty of another nation.
As for military dominance, I suspect Daniel's statement was not juxtaposed against "domination by another nation" but against "domination by civil liberties" or "domination by research-based technologies" or "domination by educational advancement for all people regardless of class." In other words, the concern is for the heavy investment our nation places in its military, causing its resources to be used up for the advancement of that military, both in the theater as an engaged military and on the homefront as a thing to be funded.
So, dominance even over domestic affairs, dominance even over home life and state of mind. That sort of thing. People think it is tough and masculine and real for the police across the nation to become militarized. No doubt it takes skill and offers further avenues for some to become masters, this way of the gun. But not all justice comes by way of the gun, or else we still are not yet learning our religions.
At any rate, anonymous, what, in your opinion and thought, can rightly be called fascistic, if anything, in our contemporary time?
Post a Comment
<< Home