Well now we’ve done it. Yes, liberals, I’m talking to you. For the past 40 years we’ve called every single bit of conservative penny-ante smear or casual demagoguery “McCarthyism.” But we couldn’t resist, could we? After all, until Watergate, it was the most prominent and useful bit of American lore for us to invoke - it was a chapter of our history wherein everybody agreed that those war-mongerin’ repressive xenophobes had taken their narrow and dangerous definition of patriotism and gone too far.
So we beat that drum, didn’t we? Beat it and beat it with a regularity you could set your watch by. Rights curtailed? “McCarthyism!” The word “liberal” is being used against us? “McCarthyism!?” Benny’s not allowed to sing “Satan’s My Best Pal” in the school talent show? “McCarthyism!” Yeah, maybe we had a point, but there were other terms we could’ve used. We could have saved it for a rainy day,held onto it, so that when we really needed it, it’d carry some weight.
Like, for instance, now.
When we talk about the McCarthy era, we tend to remember blacklists and Communist Party members and doctored photos and Joe McCarthy’s eyebrows. And most of us have probably conflated all that with poodle skirts and tiny televisions and Elvis getting wounded in Korea but being saved on the operating table by Alan Alda. We Americans get our history and our entertainment from the same device, which is about as sensible as keeping your compost heap in the fridge, right next to the fresh broccoli.
[Joe McCarthy: President or something…
or managed a ballclub… or hosted the
Ed Sullivan show, maybe.]
What we’ve forgotten about the era is that McCarthyism wasn’t about the big hearings or the direst accusations. It was a state of mind, like all “isms.” It was the toxic effect that McCarthy’s brand of “Americanism” had on the minds of all of us. The way that people no longer felt safe speaking up. Because even if you weren’t branded a Fellow Traveller, your lack of wholehearted support would at least get you at an Honorary Weak Sister badge.
It was a poisonous mindset, we all agree now. Nowadays we can see that America was engaged in a seemingly endless, nebulous war, that there was a very real threat, and that in all the hubbub we somehow lost sight of the fact that respectfully disagreeing with our government’s methods did not mean you were “soft” on the enemy. It was hysteria, and it was being fueled (or at best ignored) by those in the top level of our government because it made getting things done a whole lot easier. We realize that now.
So why, after several weeks of barroom shouting matches and watching and reading all the “debate” over the upcoming killapalooza in Iraq, have I not found any pro-war individuals who are willing to hear criticism of the Bush administration’s monumental diplomatic cock-ups as anything but unpatriotic, head-in-the-sand, lily-livered, Saddam-lovin’ subversion? Every call for the Bush administration to change its tone or patch up crumbling alliances or work with the U.N. is met with accusations of weakness or (more commonly) with all-too-successful attempts to turn the discussion to the topic of whether the speaker is aware of just how very bad Saddam really is.
And it oughta be obvious, right? Your kid gets into a fight or two at school, well, maybe he’s taking care of a bully or working out some issues or shoring up the inadequate supply of lunch money you’ve been doling out. No big deal. Even if he loses a friend or two, okay. People change. But when he stops getting along with several of his best friends and goes around screaming “I’m fine! I’m fine! I don’t need ANYBODY!” you’d probably start to worry, right?
We’re losing Turkey, fergoddsakes. Turkey. That’s like your kid losing the weird but loyal fat kid who used to see him as his only viable link to any kind of social life. Turkey! They were a big part of our invasion plan too. That’s like your kid losing the friendship of the weird fat kid the day before said fat kid’s Dad was going to take the two of them on that long-awaited and much anticipated trip to Disneyland. You’d say something if that happened, right? You know you would.
Only now you can’t. Or rather, you can, but all you’ll get in response is a lecture about your ignorance of Saddam’s extreme badness and how we never really liked the French/Germans/Russians/Chinese/Turks anyway and how the real problem might just be you, subverting our spirit and weakening our resolve as we prepare to march off with fewer and fewer friends towards an inevitable and righteous war.
Me, I’d like to cry McCarthyism. I’d like to be heard when I say that it’s possible to be a patriot and think that war with Iraq might be necessary and right, but also believe that we’re doing it the wrong way. And when I’m told that this belief makes me weak or traitorous, I’d want to shout “McCarthyism!” and have it mean something.
But I can’t. We can’t. We done used that one up already. Damn it, we should’ve just told Benny to choose a different song when we had the chance, or at least avoided using the M word on our protest. We should’ve saved that one.
We need a new word. And, god help us all, “Bushism” is already taken.
Fanny Roborat
44 comments
David
February 20, 2003 at 7:42 am
1Adam,
Bravo.
It’s time to put to bed the “Bush is a dumbass” tack. He’s smart enough to put in danger 30 years of progressive legislation and imperil the entire planet. “Stoopit” he ain’t. I for one amn’t laughing at him anymore.
Raya
February 20, 2003 at 9:59 am
2“Bush is a dangerous madman who gasses his own people”? Ooh, that sorta has a ring to it, actually (if tear gas and pepper spray count)….
Rana
February 20, 2003 at 11:50 am
3Bravo here too.
…
I can’t think of anything more to say… the situation’s increasingly getting beyond comprehension — it’s like living in Bizarro-world.
Nick
February 20, 2003 at 11:53 am
4Well said, Adam. Very well said.
Rick Schmitz
February 20, 2003 at 12:14 pm
5I’d post something in agreement, but then they would have me on the record as cavorting with a known, ah… honest person.
Mike Z
February 20, 2003 at 12:19 pm
6Oh, how true! Your analogy of the compost heap in the fridge is wonderful. TV thinks that ‘war promotion’ is more entertaining than careful discussions of policy and diplomacy. Or perhaps they just think it’s easier. (I believe the latter.) But I wonder if looking for more reasoned discourse at the local watering hole isn’t similar. Most people go there to relax and get tipsy–not be made to worry about foreign policy catastrophes by some fancy-pants blogger.
Plus, the problem is on both sides. If someone at my university suggests that military intervention might be justified, many liberals accuse them of wanting to bomb innocent babies. (As opposed to the evil, guilty babies, I guess.)
As usual, the truly thoughtful people end up somewhere in the middle. (And anyone who isn’t in the middle is an extremist fool and should be locked up forever. (Geez, this sure gets complicated in a hurry.))
jerry
February 20, 2003 at 12:45 pm
7I guess I don’t get it.
We were asked to go before the UN to present the case. This is the same international body whose committee on disarmament is chaired by Iraq. This is the same government body who sent inspectors to Iraq over 10 years ago. They finally concluded that a lot of really nasty stuff was unaccounted for. They told us how Iraq did everything it could to prevent them from doing their jobs.
Now, under a credible threat of war, inspectors are allowed back in country. They were given a regurgitation of an incomplete and purposely confusing “Declaration” of Iraq’s weapons programs. They have to negotiate to allow overflights of U2 planes. Why are they having to negotiate anything?
Does anyone believe that the inspectors would be allowed to do anything without the credible threat of war?
No one wants to go to war. My closest friends are leading sailors and soldiers right now in Kuwait, Bahrain, Turkey and the Persian Gulf. This is very much a personal thing for me. Avoiding war if possible is the best choice but to do so at any price is the worst.
Ken
February 20, 2003 at 12:50 pm
8I’m afraid that we’ve gone far beyond McCarthyism.
McCarthy could only dream of what Bush, Ashcroft and their cronies have done…
Not only have they made it Un-American to speak out against the President’s ideas, but they’ve gotten congress to pass the Patriot Act.
Here’s a list of some changes to our Legal Rights*.
It’s truly frightening that these basic rights we that we all learned in elementary school are no longer in effect.
…sigh
aaron
February 20, 2003 at 2:26 pm
9I actually posted about this topic today too.
Here’s some advice for anyone who ever gets called “Un-American” or “Anti-American” for their beliefs on the “President” and his administration’s policies… just say these four little words…
“How’d you like Clinton?”
…and immediately your accuser will either commence their very own president-bashing (leaving them open to the same insults) or they’ll shut up. If they claim that it was a different situation then, agree with them, because it WAS a different situation.
(Clinton was actually elected.)
Ras_Nesta
February 20, 2003 at 2:38 pm
10I’ve pretty much given up trying to reason with the Cult-of-Bush war-mongers, they seem to be completely immune to logic or the Socratic method.
No matter how many times you ask them, if we’re worried about Saddam handing weapons off to the stateless terrorists we are already fighting against, wouldn’t it make more sense to finish the war against the terrorists first and take that option away before attacking Saddam?
No matter how many times you ask them WHY Iraq would attack it’s best oil customer, us?
No matter how many times you ask an Iraqi war-monger where they were in ‘88 when Kurds were being gassed, or whether their new-found compassion for 3rd-world babies transfers to Tibet or Zimbabwe?
No matter how many times you ask them, so, it’s been 12 years, but now a matter of waiting a few months, or another year, is unacceptable just because Bush says so? (Avoiding the fact that a war next year, an election year, could be disasterous to Bush’s political well-being.)
No matter how many times you try to reason with the Cult-of-Bush apologists and war-mongers, all you get in response is the facile “Saddam is evil!”
Adam
February 20, 2003 at 3:26 pm
11“Does anyone believe that the inspectors would be allowed to do anything without the credible threat of war?”
Jerry -
I sure don’t. Iraq would allow nothing without a credible threat of war. That was my point today… I know Saddam’s bad. I advocate the threat, and if necessary the reality of war.
But that credible threat COULD HAVE come from the UN, or from a larger coalition of allies. But we’ve messed it up, starting with our addle-headed boisterous threats of unilateral attack this summer, wherein the US made its provocative, Saddam-scaring remarks WITHOUT any previous back-channel diplomatic warnings to our allies as to what we were going to say and why…
Such diplomacy would have been smart. It might have prevented France, Germany and Russia from getting on that slippery slope to total opposition to US action. It would have showed them some respect and cost us nothing. Instead, we came across as swaggering, superior cowboys.
Once again - this is a simple point, a good point, and the situation is still somewhat reparable. But with all due respect, your reply is typical of the phenomenon I was talking about - it ignores my point and assumes that I just don’t realize how intractable Iraq really is.
I do. But we’re doing it the wrong way. We’re doing it the wrong way. We’re……..
Dugrless
February 20, 2003 at 4:15 pm
12We’re only doing it the wrong way if you believe that the UN and global alliances in general are good things and America being the one and only superduperpower is not such a great idea for anyone. If, on the other hand, you believe that the UN is past - or never had - its prime, and that the New World Order should be one in which the New World gives the Orders, then maybe we’re not doing it the wrong way.
I like the UN, and I always thought that hating the UN was a trapping of compound-dwelling right-wing zealots who also wanted to topple the all-powerful Zionist Illuminati. But it turns out that some pretty influential people in the Bush Administration hate the UN, and though I don’t think there’s some grand conspiracy to topple it, I do think that there are those who would shed no tears if this was the death knell for multi-lateral cooperation/quasi-democracy on a global scale.
So maybe, depending on the point of view, we are going about it the right way.
name withheld
February 20, 2003 at 4:38 pm
13Adam, love your blog. But pro-war? Isn’t that unfair? Like those who dub pro-choice people, pro-abortion?
I agree with Jerry. Yikes! ?I also don’t think he was ignoring your point, as no anti-american insults were hurled anyone’s way. Nor did he rate Bush’s performance.
Also I am all for calling the Bush administration to task for his lousy dealings. I don’t like Bush.
I don’t know where you hang out. In my neck of the woods you can’t say you may not be opposed to military action or that you may not want to march/e-mail/protest. Even must keep my mouth shut for fear of not getting work due to my beliefs. So I just hide.
I thought I was a liberal, but there is no place for a liberal who not only doesn’t think Iraq is “all about oil” and think that Bush is lying about everything (because he is a war monger) also one who doesn’t want to protest the war (that hasn’t happened yet) and that perhaps, big perhaps, thinks the military might be needed.
I am going to crawl back into my shell.
Ken
February 20, 2003 at 5:54 pm
14Adam,
I’m all for “Name Withheld’s” implied suggestion.
Let’s not call them “pro-war”, we should use “anti-peace” to describe them.
dahlia
February 20, 2003 at 6:13 pm
15If Saddam needs a credible threat of War to disarm, doesn’t he also need a credible possibility of Not War to disarm? If you were Hussein, and you knew as we know that nothing in this life or the next is going to stop Bush from attacking you, would you disarm? Screw it. Where’s the incentive? Nobody in the world likes Saddam, and we’ve managed to make him seem to be a martyr to the cause of American Imperialism. What further proof does one need of our complete, utter failure of diplomacy than that people are actually criticizing us for wanting to be rid of him? This should have been a sure thing. He’s a truly terrible person. Instead, between Rumsfeld’s abusive and childish arrogance and Bush’s Veruca Salt cries of “But, Daddy, I want to attack iraq noooooowwwwwww!!!!” we Americans have come across as swaggering, war-mongering bullies. Great. Thanks heaps, Dubya. I give The Onion credit for the best nutshell of this administration: “Bush [says, upon assuming office]: Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over.”
adam
February 20, 2003 at 6:36 pm
16“Adam, love your blog. But pro-war? Isn’t that unfair? Like those who dub pro-choice people, pro-abortion?”
You may have a point there, though I don’t like “pro-choice” much better than “pro-abortion.” One’s a bit misleading (like “pro-war,” as you point out), while the other’s a euphemism. I suppose “pro-unilateralism” would be closer, though it’s not the kind of thing anyone wants to read, much less try to say.
“I agree with Jerry. Yikes! ?I also don’t think he was ignoring your point, as no anti-american insults were hurled anyone’s way. “
Sorry if it seems like I’m accusing Jerry of hurling insults. He didn’t. He did, however, opt to lecture about the sins of Saddam rather than approach the point that our course of action has been terribly unwise.
And that was a large part of my point: If a reasonable, well-spoken guy like Jerry can’t approach this debate with the assumption that some “anti-unilateralists” are as informed, concerned, and anti-Saddam as he is, there’s something wrong, isn’t there? How often must this be repeated before the point is taken and we begin discussing what the major rift in the US right now is really about?
I am fairly confident that I’m in the majority among the “anti-war” set: I believe that Saddam needs to be dealt with, and that there must be a credible threat of force. I’m not convinced that our timing is great, and I’m certain that the Bush administration has made potentially disastrous errors with its utter lack of diplomatic consideration.
We should not be in a position where we have to say “To hell with France and Germany - they’re not REALLY our allies.” We should not be in a position where European opinion polls are suddenly showing an overwhelming growth of anti-American sentiment (and if you look at the numbers, you’ll see that it IS very sudden). We cannot fight terrorism alone, and when world opinion shifts so precipitously, we’re in very, very real danger of losing the strong support of some of our allies. Because in the democracies, the strong counter-terrorist cooperation could start to evaporate with the next election.
Let’s put it this way: If Bush’s plan was to launch 25 nuclear missiles at Iraq tomorrow morning, you’d probably oppose it, I’m guessing. That would put you in the position where you found yourself both in favor of stopping Saddam and convinced that the President’s strategy was completely wrongheaded.
That’s where I am. That’s where the majority of rational “anti-war” Americans are. That’s what the debate should be about.
But it isn’t. Just like in the McCarthy era, the debate has been manipulated into a cartoonish either/or context.
The McCarthy era shouldn’t be remembered as caricaturish suburbanites with buzz-cuts raving that everyone who read books was a Commie. It was about rational, intelligent people who no longer had the ability to debate whether, for instance, the activities of the administration, the FBI, and HUAC were the right thing and right for America.
They weren’t. This Iraq strategy isn’t. The current climate - which stifles this excruciatingly important debate - is everybody’s problem.
craig
February 20, 2003 at 7:02 pm
17okay, this is getting a little off topic from Adam’s original missive, but I’ve been dying to say this (because it seems so obvious) and this seems like as good a place as any to orate:
If the primary concern is that the Iraq may supply al Qaeda or another terrorist organization with WMD, isn’t it better to keep the peace in the region so that intelligence organizations can monitor known WMD caches? If the regime of Saddam Hussein is overturned, who will “own” the WsMD [or is it WMDs?]? Isn’t it likely that one or more Iraqi generals or “war lords” will be able to get his hands on a WMD either for his own use or for sale on the black market? If everyone involved “keeps his hands on the table where everyone else can see ‘em” than it is less likely that anything can be slipped to another under the table.
Could it be that al Qaeda will even provoke a war as a diversion just so that it can get its hands on WMD under the cover of a US air assault? It’s almost as if we’re playing in to their hands.
I feel much better having gotten that off my chest. [That’s a lie. I’m still scared.]
Will-o'-the-Wisp
February 20, 2003 at 7:11 pm
18“Bush, stumping in support of his economic policies, said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was “throwing away” his last chance to disarm voluntarily under U.N. auspices.”
That’s what the article that Adam linked to claimed. Yes. Control copy.
Anonymous
February 20, 2003 at 7:45 pm
19“Nowadays we can see that America was engaged in a seemingly endless, nebulous war, ”
“Rights curtailed?”
Add an intrusive govermental agency that keeps track of our every move and utilize double speak, it would sound Orwellian. ….Just a minute total information awareness act, destruction of the FCC so we can have all of our news from corporate giants….. it’aint 2003, it’s 1984
small child
February 20, 2003 at 7:59 pm
20Craig, that’s a lot of my opinion right there. Of course there’s more, but I won’t bore you all, and I can’t spell some of it.
Sure Saddam is evil, but how is taking him out of power going to keep some person from taking over the government a little down the road and starting all this back up again?
Alright, I had to share a little of it. To sum up my feelings about today’s blog, I’m going to have to quote the first Harry Potter movie (sorry): Terrible, but great.
Will-o'-the-Wisp
February 20, 2003 at 8:04 pm
21My position is different from most of those printed above. I do not think we have the authority to remove Saddam immediately, or at least he has to go along with Robert Mugabe and the Burmese (Myanmarian?) junta, and I don’t think he is a threat to anyone except his own people. I oppose war. There are going to be hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead. Sure, an Iraqi would say yes if s/he was asked if s/he wants Saddam out. But how about Saddam and your mother (son, cousin)?
And I am not sure they will like it that much without Saddam. Many Russians think they were (or were) better off under the Communists. Large minorities vote for Communists. Is “arguably better” really worth hundreds of thousands of lives?
But I think inspections (with threats) can still work to disarm him, since the CIA seems to have divulged the relevant info to the inspectors. That is, if disarming Saddam is the goal, as opposed to getting rid of him. In any case, Saddam is old and fat, and I think we can wait for him to have a heart attack and die. Then, we might be able to take advantage of the turbulence and democratize Iraq. If we have the will by then.
jerry
February 20, 2003 at 8:59 pm
22I apologize. I failed to stick to the point and did fall squarely into the trap that Adam very clearly marked with bright yellow and black caution tape, warning klaxons, and flashing yellow lights.
What I most object to and don’t understand is when the “Give Inspectors a chance” crowd does pull the “No Blood for Oil” and similar arguments. Do they truly believe those arguments?
[quote]I know Saddam’s bad. I advocate the threat, and if necessary the reality of war.[/quote]
This is not the theme of the major voices of opposition. The whole stance is no war, period.
[quote]Opening the Los Angeles rally, Michel Shehadeh of the Free Palestine Alliance and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition welcomed the crowd with the words that “the demonstrations today taking place all over the world are revealing the fact that the Bush administration’s planned war of aggression is now in direct confrontation with the will of the people everywhere.”[/quote]
http://www.internationalanswer.org/news/update/021503f15rpt.html
This doesn’t speak to “we agree Saddam is bad and maybe we should be doing something differently”. This says Bush is starting a war of aggression and not acting, rightly or wrongly, as a result of a more than a decade of failed diplomacy.
[quote]We’re only doing it the wrong way if you believe that the UN and global alliances in general are good things and America being the one and only superduperpower is not such a great idea for anyone. If, on the other hand, you believe that the UN is past - or never had - its prime, and that the New World Order should be one in which the New World gives the Orders, then maybe we’re not doing it the wrong way.[/quote]
This is my general feeling. The UN is losing its relevancy. Time and time again in recent history it fails, from genocide in Rwanda, to the Middle East.
So it boils down to what do we do? Remember the initial question, “Is Iraq cooperating?”
If we give inspectors more time how much more do they need? What constitutes being uncooperative? What are the consequences?
I believe the inspectors don’t need much more time if any at all. Iraq has had more than enough time to get their act in gear. If the Iraqi government wants to prevent military action then they should be falling all over themselves to cooperate with the inspectors. Their scientists should be queuing up by the dozens for interviews under the conditions established by Blix, not making demands of their own before they agree to the interviews. Inspectors should have been allowed U2 overflights without question or hesitation. I believe consequences should be forcible disarmament.
Should the United States have gone to France and said, “Look, we’re going to play a little good cop/bad cop and we need you to be the good cop”. Maybe. Should we have done the same with Germany? No. Their government became intractable during their elections, before anything was done more than turning up the rhetoric. Regardless, they should not be trying to eviscerate the force option. It must be a credible threat for this to work, with or without bloodshed.
When all of this started I was only about 95% behind the force option. If I were the Commander-in-Chief this would not reach my threshold of the required 100% to commit US forces to anything, so I called a friend of mine I trust implicitly. I asked him what he thought as a man who commanded a company of soldiers and would be leading some of them to death. If he were POTUS, would he give the order? He said having seen the material he sees (various levels of classification and from varing sources) he said yes.
dee
February 20, 2003 at 9:21 pm
23Can I just say I love this place? I haven’t heard reasonable disagreements expressed so well and so civilly.
I don’t have anything to add, except this: Whatever my opinion of George Bush, I still cringe at some of the placards and displays exhibited suring the peace marches. I cannot approve of demonizing George Bush any more than I can accept demonizing Saddam Hussein. It smacks of those awful Jap Posters during WWII. It doesn’t add to the dialogue.
I LIKE the “anti-unilateralist” idea — probably comes closest to what I’m feeling.
Thanks to all of you for giving something to think about.
Neil
February 21, 2003 at 1:48 am
24Time for a lesson about a leader who gets panned.
He wants to take on a bully. But trouble is, not many agree he is a bully.
They call the leader clueless.
The French foreign minister calls him reckless.
A Belgian diplomat says he risks ruining world order.
Opposition leaders at home call him a warmonger.
The bully himself says he not a bully and takes out ads in newspapers assuring the world he has no hostile intentions.
Those same newspapers call the leader arrogant.
That he’s wrong about the bully and that the leader’s not in sync with the civilized world.
The Swiss pan him.
The Germans say they’re offended.
Even regular folks in the leader’s country say the leader’s nuts. One newspaper calls him paranoid. Another, a “bellicose boob.”
The leader is shunned. He won’t go far, says one headline. The wrong man at the wrong time fighting the wrong war.
But this leader had it right. The bully had lied and the bully did attack. And this leader — of an opposition party — became the leader of a country.
You might have heard of him. His name was Winston Churchill.
And the bully was Adolph Hitler.
Funny thing… history.
Thanks,
N.C.
ishmael
February 21, 2003 at 2:10 am
25Probably no two people see this issue (or any other, for that matter) the same way, eh? (With that realization, the anti-war movement shouldn’t be blown off, en masse as it were, by quoting the least defensible statements around.)
My view. I’m a native-born American citizen, but not an American. I live on the planet Earth, and see all nationalism as narrow-minded. I have to be unsympathetic with anyone who calls for any “American” policy that is not for the best interests of all on this planet for an indefinitely sustainable future.
People are scared, in part because they watch too much television, and pay attention to too much news which isn’t news. The media is continually becoming more concentrated, and more serving of corporatist interests. This is a bad dynamic (it isn’t even in the short-range interests of the majority of people within the border of this defined country).
It has often been said that ad hominem arguments are to be avoided, but in very complex matters, I think that looking at the person giving the arguments is the best way to make at least initial judgments. (For instance: is Steve Forbes the most credible presenter of a “flat tax” on the basis of fairness for “poor people”? Has he any credentials for concern for the poor, on any other matter?) Don’t you have to question the arguments, when the person giving them seems so very wrong to be giving them?
I honestly tried to be fair (in my mind) with the present Administration, even though it was appointed. I have been impressed with a smattering of a few cleverly conciliatory remarks, but the behavior belies the heart. I have been coming around more and more to the view that a majority of the members of this Administration have strong fascist tendencies (and I don’t mean that off-handedly). They are scared, much of the time. They love the military. They want to dominate the world. They feel totally righteous and certain in their attitudes. They have little appreciation of the subtleties of what “freedom” and “democracy” really are. (As an aside,the “freedom” that many people are willing to die for seems to merely be the freedom to be led by a home-grown dictator rather than a foreign-born one.) They are willing to lie.
Part of the problem is that we really want to believe what people tell us, particularly when they are in authority. (”Sales” works, psychologically, because so many of us, so much of the time, are wanting to be cooperative, and to believe what we are told.) Well, it seems that many people are capable of incessant lying (maybe to themselves, as well). We want to believe the President, but at some point we need to question his basic veracity. If he were the ship’s captain, and I was it’s doctor, I’d look for ways to declare him insane, as that is what I truly believe.
If Bush and Blair were truly for support of the United Nations and its resolutions, they would have long ago made an issue of supporting the institution and all of its resolutions, and not now trying to tear the U.N. down for not adequately inforcing this one particular resolution. If they were for democracy, they should be leading the way for real democracies all over the globe, and not just decrying this particular despot. If they were for human rights, they would be leading the way for the enforcement of human rights, in their own countries and around the Earth. If they were against WMD’s, they would convene genuine efforts for world disarmament. Yet Bush and Blair have the gall to call into question the human-rights support of anti-war demonstators.
The U.S. is not supporting the U.N. by unilaterally enforcing the rules, but the contrary — it is tearing the structure down. B & B cannot have it both ways.
Saddam is bad, but Baghdad should not be bombed because a U.N. resolution was not obeyed. I am not a pacifist. But any being (or country) should not use lethal force to defend itself, except in the most immediate, clear, and dire circumstances; and the present situation is not such.
Powell, the most believable of the bunch, has said that he wants the United States to be the preeminent force in the world. Even if he believes that the present Administration to be perfectly angelic, cannot he conceive of any government in the future that is seriously tainted? Shouldn’t some “checks and balances”, theoretically built into our Constitution, be the best situation for the entire world? How can we/he be entirely sure that no deranged despot could take & wield force within this country? In my view, we are very far from “fail safe”.
Let’s work together to create a just and sustainable world for all, eh?
ishmael
February 21, 2003 at 2:17 am
26By the way, I believe “Bushusuru” (or something quite like that) has been in the Japanese volcabulary, for “puke”, since Bush the First blew his lunch on his host’s lap. Maybe we could work this word into out usage. It’s kinda fun to say, if you try to fake a Japanese demeanor.
Farberwear
February 21, 2003 at 4:35 am
27Bravo Adam!
Antsy
February 21, 2003 at 8:00 am
28How about “jingoism”? I guess this goes way beyond that as well (or does it, really)? The real “war mentality” in practically every war I’ve ever heard of from at least WWI on has the exact same qualities as the public discourse we are hearing now. But no previous government ever had the technological ability to sniff down into every detail of the public’s dirty little lives and opinions that this one has. The guys in “1984″ were flat amateurs compared to the government of today, armed with the internet, spy equipment, an utterly tame and obedient mass media, and a seasoned and well-trained PR corps.
Even the majority of people uneasy about or opposed to the war are apparently willing to talk about Saddam in the terms of discourse introduced by Bush. That’s the problem essentially. Before the Bushites began howling about Saddam (and remember Bush already wanted to talk about attacking Saddam right after Sept 11, 2001 - before that, who in the U.S. was worrying about him? We knew back then that he was an evil dictator, and he had been contained for a long time. There might be something going on in Iraq for intelligence to keep an eye on, but no worse than in many other dubious countries. But now we apparently can’t disagree with anything the Bush administration does without falling on our knees and avowing that Saddam is evil, etc. Even to the point of utterly disregarding an ACTUAL possible threat like North Korea, who might actually be able to DO something against us. Yet even Saddam’s neighbors, who have had to live with him (and occasionally be attacked by him) for decades, are not ravening for this war. It is simply not acceptable to allow the administration to set the terms of discourse and THEN try to argue against the war.
The point is NOT Saddam. It’s the ultimate goals and intentions of the Bush administration. They’ve been utterly consistent in their behavior from the time Bush first set his cowboy-booted foot in the White House. They set about dismantling the economy, the environment, the tax structure (such as it is) and dumping everything in the laps of Bush’s financial masters from day one, and September 11 only gave them the PR gold mine they needed to vastly accelerate their program. There’s no point in going on about this because it’s all been well documented, far better than I can do, in huge quantity.
As long as Bush is setting the terms and parameters for the debate over the war and anything else he is doing, he’s in control and he’s going to win while everybody disagreeing with him struggles not to sound as stupid and tongue-tied as he is. What a coup for a guy who can hardly navigate his way through a spontaneous sentence! He may be unintelligible, but he certainly knows how to run (or be run in) a campaign.
Raya
February 21, 2003 at 11:34 am
29I am not a pacifist. But
Well, I am a pacifist, on precisely the reasoning Ishmael cites: why should innocent Iraqis have to die (and not even as “heroes” like the WTC victims, but as “collateral damage”) because they happen to have been born and live under a brutal dictator? Haven’t they suffered enough? Like Ishamel, I consider myself a citizen of the world, not just this country, and I’m looking for a policy that will benefit humanity, not just Americans. In conclusion: Go Ishmael!
As an aside (and back to the topic of Adam’s original post): I’ve been puzzled lately by the following paradox–
Whenever I express my misgivings about Bush’s Iraq policy (or, more recently, about the police repression that hamstrung Saturday’s demonstration in NYC), someone invariably pops up to say “How dare you? Don’t you know that thousands of people fought and died to defend your freedoms?”
I don’t get it. When I speak my mind or set out to attend a demonstration, aren’t I celebrating those very freedoms soldiers fight and die for? And isn’t the person telling me to shut up the one who shows disrespect for the memory of those soldiers?
Ras_Nesta
February 21, 2003 at 1:58 pm
30Neil, let me guess–you get all of your information from Faux News Channel, right?
Only someone that ill-informed and ignorant (not stupid) would make the second ignorant, ill-informed, facile argument war-mongers love, Saddam-as-Hitler (The first being that Saddam will attack us, “jus’ ’cause he’s crazy”).
Saddam is the brutal, tinpot dictator of an impoverished now-3rd world country with no economy to speak of. Hitler was the brutal dictator of an impoverished 1st-world country with tremendous manufacturing capability. Saddam has already been punished militarily for invading his neighbor, and has been at peace with all of them for 12 years. Hitler was still in several of his neighbors, and had designs on many more.
So basically, your Saddam=Hitler analogy is a sad little joke hoisted on you by a media desperate for the money war will make them.
Miel
February 21, 2003 at 8:47 pm
31Ishmael–After reading all this I’m too worn out to say much. I agree entirely with what you’ve said. So I’ll just say: “What Ishmael said.”
I don’t remember every saying ‘McCarthy-ism’ about much that has gone before. I can’t remember ever seeing anything like this in my life…there is no precedent. However, the McCarthy era did show us how easy it is to whip people into hysteria and then utilize the power of government to silence and intimidate others. It also shows that people forget their history very quickly.
The U.S.S.R. was not the actual threat that the U.S. thought it was, perhaps. But it certainly had the power to threaten the U.S. in a way nothing currently does. At the moment, I’d say the U.S. is its own worst enemy. We’re doing this to ourselves, you might say.
Stan
February 21, 2003 at 11:50 pm
32Osama is winning. With enemies like those in the White House, who needs friends?
pete
February 22, 2003 at 5:13 pm
33I still can’t believe people are shocked by the fact that somebody wants to go to war with somebody else. welcome to the world, everybody. this is what we do. sure we have language and art and music and architecture and all that wonderfulness, but there’s also a spot in our magificent little minds that makes us, for whatever reason, want to fight. here’s a challenge, open a history textbook to any page see if there are no mentions of war directly or indirectly. doubtful.
somewhere along the lines of becoming “civilized”, we sort of had to deny our own human impulses and biology. and somewhere along the lines we stopped fighting for tangible things (like land or food for example) and started fighting for concepts, like democracy. but we’re still fighting. if bush was a king a few hundred years ago, all he’d have to do to go to war would be saying “we’re going to war” now he just has to fight a big roll of red tape. but if he has it in his head to fight, well then he’s going to fight.
same species, new technology
Rana
February 22, 2003 at 8:35 pm
34I don’t know — the war is in our genes explanation just seems too facile to me. I can see that human beings — like pretty much any other species — might need to defend their family members, their food source, their territory, etc. But then to generalize and say that as a _species_ we are all predisposed to attack en masse a group of people who aren’t posing a direct threat to us (and by this I mean a threat in which you’re looking literally eyeball to eyeball at your rival) is simplistic and unhelpful.
It seems to me that once you’ve moved it to this level of abstraction, it’s no longer appropriate to turn to biology and instinct for your explanations. And, when we’re operating at this level, it seems just as feasible to posit altruism and a desire to maintain friendly relationships with one’s allies as appropriate and necessary as waging war would be.
Moreover, the questions of whether or not we are surprised by the existence of war, or whether or not Bush wishes to fight because of his genes or because of his politics are ultimately beside the point. The real question is, in a situation where we have decided to let the rule of law and majority will be the way our society is governed rather than autocratic tyranny or unfettered biological urges, should a leader who is the head of a government not only for but also BY and OF the people be allowed to act as if he is the king of the world? And to do so without incurring protest and question?
I say not.
pete
February 23, 2003 at 1:14 am
35may i just say first, that maybe i don’t get out enough, but what you just wrote and the opinions and ideas i’ve read here are some of the most intelligent i’ve heard in awhile. it’s refreshing like a glass of lemonade on a hot summer’s eve.
rana- i wasn’t referring to defense instincts. every animal has them, they’re definetely built into us. i was talking about the sort of violence that happens in non-threatening situations. like how we hunt for sport and not because we need to survive. or stuff like soccer riots or racial- or ethnic-based killing. it’s this sort of seemingly random agression that i was referring to.
i’m all for putting and end to it, believe me. if we protest til we’re blue in the face, and it works, and bush and saddam, or bush and the world have an agreement, and war is averted and lives are saved, that’s a beautiful thing. but when we act suprised that it happens (’in this day and age! well, i never.’) we are fooling ourself
small child
February 23, 2003 at 10:45 am
36World History: Patterns of Interaction, published by McDougal Littell and edited by Roger B. Beck, Linda Black, Phillip C. Naylor, and Dahia Ibo Shabaka…pages 48-49, 424-425, and 620-621, just to name a few.
And the reason wars get so much attention is because stuff happens…I mean unless it’s really recent or the Renaissance, how interesting is it to say, “And then there were 50 years of peace. And during those years of peace…” Okay, maybe a little interesting, but I hope you get my point.
It’s interesting how things react when you give them time. It’s easy to be against the war or the way the war is being handled for a long time, but it seems to be difficult to be supportive of the war for a long time. Why is that? Perhaps because we get time to hear arguments and think for ourselves, perhaps for the conspiratists amongst us, they have time to find the hidden motives. It’s just interesting, that’s all.
Hart
February 23, 2003 at 2:58 pm
37Excellent.
Elayne Riggs
February 23, 2003 at 3:19 pm
38Yes, we need to find new words other than McCarthyism and something-gate and Orwellian, because what is happening now is much, much worse. Those words can no longer adequately describe what our country is currently undergoing.
Very nice entry, Adam. Atrios linked to it; I’m likely to do the same.
Erich
February 23, 2003 at 4:01 pm
39Pete:
“the sort of violence that happens in non-threatening situations”?
Are you actually approving of this? A brutal robbery/murder of an innocent jogger in a park is just such violence, and we don’t chalk it up to good old human instinct. We use a Constitutionally-based justice system to publicly ascertain guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt) and assign punishment.
To compare the leader of the free world to such a thug is, in my opinion, quite dangerous. Our civilization has advanced too far to sustain these warlord-like, might-makes-right situations.
It seems that there is a lack of understanding of what will actually happen in the region after our quick DOD demonstration. The Turks, Kurds, Shias and Sunnis are all prepared to go to civil war. This will create many more factions on the order of al Qaeda, with potentially easy access to those weapons our government is so sure are in Iraq already.
If this were a matter of Bush vs. Saddam (I loved the idea of a duel by one of Saddam’s underlings), you can see that most people above agree that Saddam needs to go. But the unfathomably complicated situation in the country and the region as a whole, along with our “war” against terrorism demands that we transcend those caveman instincts and act slowly, methodically and peacefully with an international coalition to stabilize the most volatile region on earth.
Pete
February 24, 2003 at 11:42 pm
40Erich - the jogger example is exactly the kind of sporatic, illogical violence that i was confused about. no of course i do not approve of this, and it is definetely not animal instinct. this is the grey area that i am trying to understand. why we do these sorts of things for no apparent reason, it makes no sense to me. and you rarely see it in the animal kingdom (where violence is clearly based on a need to survive).
smallchild- i appreciate that you called my bluff, but i hope at least that you understand what i was saying. yeah war is exciting and all, and it’s in the history books because it’s such a huge part of how we as people have come to live. war impacts every facet of society. i do agree that in history class the parts between wars were relatively boring, but definetely equally important.
obviously we kill each other. a lot. and read about it (and nowadays watch it) too. is it the thrill? the excitement of violence? why are we so willing to kill each other over little things (like road rage or something like that)?
i sort of feel like the host of an infomercial right now… “there’s got to be a better way!”
Rana
February 25, 2003 at 12:35 pm
41Pete — I’m glad you clarified your initial comments. I’d latched onto the “war is part of human nature” aspect of your point rather than the “war is not surprising.” (I teach environmental studies so I have pretty sensititve radar for such issues.)
I’d add that the random violence you mention actually raises even more questions about what our response should be, both as individuals and as creatures who have chosen to use culture, law, etc. to control our behavior rather than only acting mindlessly on instinct. It seems to me that an underlying question is what is it in our societies that not only permits such violence, but perhaps even encourages it.
It seems to me that it is necessary to address the problem from at least two angles: the root conditions that encourage such behavior and the social constraints that act to discourage it. In the case of the current crisis over should we go to war or not, it seems like a central question is how we approach the violence represented by Saddam AND the potential violence of those who might be influenced by how global society addresses that violence.
If we address Saddam’s violence only from the second angle — a punitive attack — without considering what made him a threat in the first place, we haven’t really solved the problem of violence but rather a particular instance of it. This sort of solution may also aggravate the causal influences that lead to violence (civil unrest, disregard for international law, setting the precedent of preemptive violence (war), etc.)
So until I get a sense that the US (and others) is addressing both aspects of the problem, it’s hard for me to believe that a war with Iraq would not itself be the sort of violence that should be prevented and condemned.
ishmael
February 26, 2003 at 12:18 am
42“Hooverism” — there’s another term that we could add to our volcabulary. J. Edgar (aka “the vac”) would be proud.
I just heard today on NPR that the Denver police have for over 25 years been keeping files on those people that they considered potentially dangerous. They listed one guy as belonging to the suspiciously radical group known as the American Friends Service Commitee.
If they’re going to start (continue) keeping files, maybe they should be sure to include the mayor and city council, and all members of the police department. I wonder how that would be accepted?
Gnome Chomsky: do you have a comment?
elliott
February 26, 2003 at 9:30 pm
43I think the term “Hooverism” is fantastic ’cause this administration just sucks. Well, sometimes it blows also. But who is the cross dresser? We haven’t seen the vice prez in a while….Naw, it’s hard to imagine that anyone in the admin has sexuality, empathy or fashion sense.
Bills Baseball Bat
January 26, 2006 at 10:17 pm
44Great Site!