November 08, 2004
Sorry, Lawrence, but America IS Fucked Up
Lawrence Kaplan joins the legions of right-wingers chiding the Left for their "hate speech" and "hissy-fits" in the aftermath of the election. Of course, the Dems are hardly the first to resort to name-calling. In Jonah Goldberg's column on "sore losers", he offers us the following conciliatory language that befits him as a benevolent victor...
There are other complaints as well. Take the two leading liberal columnists at the New York Times, Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman. As we all know, one's a whining self-parody of a hysterical liberal who lets feminine emotion and fear defeat reason and fact in almost every column. The other used to date Michael Douglas.
What Goldberg, and the rest of the Washington and NY right-wing journalistic crew don't seem to understand, is that George Bush and the GOP really did exploit dangerous and hateful popular tendencies to achieve victory. As much as I'd like to believe that conservatives were motivated by humane religious arguments or rational objections to Kerry's foreign policy, there really were plenty of voters that voted Bush because he's the more aggressive and "masculine" candidate. Either consciously or unconsciously, a great number of people really do enjoy the spectacle of revenge and destruction and want to see more of it. They really do hate gays and want to see them humiliated. These destructive tendencies are deep-seated in human nature--only civilization and humanization can tame them.
And it seems a great part of America is simply not civilized in this regard. This is why the European media rightly savages us.
The NR, and especially the Weekly Standard types, have little understanding of the monster they've helped create. No one seems the least bit worried that these tendencies might one day come back to bite them in the ass, probably in the form of the anti-Semitism that is still out there.
If it is fair to criticize Democrats for exploiting the inner-city minority vote, it is certainly fair to criticize Bush for exploiting religious fundamentalism and previously latent aggressive/sadistic/macho feelings. Both of these GOTV methods are populist. Both are aimed at politicizing relatively ignorant and frustrated voting blocs. If red-staters resent our criticisms of their stupidity, then fuck them. These people are ignorant and ought to be pitied. And quite frankly, many of them will only respond to the sort of bullying they're used to dishing out. My apologies for offending anyone--but these people are, to a large extent, sad, unhappy, and unenlightened folks.
If all this sounds hateful, then I'm sorry. But it's the truth. Saying otherwise is analogous to Social Democrats looking at the rising conservative/fascist tide in Weimar politics and concluding "we really have to do a better job winning over those voters whose main priority is institutionalizing their hatred of gays and Jews and restoring an aggressive foreign policy". And no, these historical phenomenon are not equal. But the Weimar analogy underlines the fact that democracy does not always create good things, especially in a context where right-wingers control the popular discourse.
I respect the GOP for their victory. But I don't respect their arguments--they were, for the most part, wrong. And by extension, America was wrong. That's right, America has been wrong before and it will be wrong again. Red-state ignorance has led America down the wrong path before and it will yet again.
With the exception of the hard-core pro-lifers, there was no rationale to vote Bush that stood up to serious scrutiny. This is why the media was perceived as so pro-Kerry, 2 years after cheerleading for the Iraqi invasion. In a rational, Downsian democracy, Bush would have been held accountable for the Iraq debacle. Nothing Kaplan and Goldberg say leads one to believe otherwise. In the end, this result had nothing to do with reason--it had everything to do with passions that ought to be controlled.
Red-state hatred may be overstated and counterproductive, but it is also an expression of what we liberals ought to keep in mind. That is, our values are better than theirs. Our communities are better and more productive than theirs. The only way to convince these people is to stand up and loudly assert what is wrong with their communities--to tap the dissatisfaction that brings out their aggression.
It seems you are saying that masculinity is a dangerous tendency. Is that what you mean?
Frankly, I am getting sick of the whining losing side calling the people who voted for Bush Ignorant. It's all based on opinion, and I am not ignorant because I don't want to live in a utopian socialist country where my work is for my brother and his neighbor. Some people think the war in Iraq is just. Some people want a reason to protest. It's all opinion. Try harder next time. I think one reason the left was left behind in this election is Because of the loud whining about everything. Thats what turned people off.
I think abortion turned them off as well. Gay marriage turned them off. The dems are doomed if they don't get at least one life and family issue right because like it or not families make babies and babies grow up and babies vote. University professors can't convert them enough of them into leftists. Dem voting blocks don't have very many kids at all: Gays? no. Feminists? no. Blacks? they are aborting their babies. Hispanics? They are not trending democrat enough to make up the difference. Besides, next election the Republicans will be prepared for the Dem candidate to lie outright to spanish speaking media about the Dem abortion stance and will be sure to define the dems as pro-abort way ahead of time. This time they were caught off guard by Kerry claiming in the spanish speaking press that he was "completely pro-life" without any freedom of choice explanation to go along with it.
Downto,
It all depends how you define masculinity. Masculinity is a dangerous tendency insofar as it expresses itself as a bullying and dominating attitude. What I really dislike is machismo dressed up in the garbs of masculinity.
Supersixone,
My post was aimed at dispelling the idea that the "whining losing side" should simply shut up and give in to those we believe to be wrong. This "winners" first mentality, this contempt for "losers"--this is at the heart of what is wrong with America. It preaches identification with bullies and the justification of cruelty and violence.
Sure, politics is about opinion. But some opinions are better than others. Everything I've read tells me the claim that the Iraq War was unjust is the educated opinion. The better opinion for the future of America. If you could drop your cultural prejudices and honestly look at the facts, I'm sure you'd come to the same conclusion.
okay. So what is machismo?
Regarding bullying: This is the real focus. The authority the Bush exercises, if legitimate is only masculine, and if illegitimate then bullying. The question is not masculinity then, rather it is the legitamcy of U.S. presidential power used by Bush and whether it is within its bounds. What are the aprameters by which you say Bush has crossed a line? There we will really have a discussion, but we hvae to discuss the grounds, boundaries, and derivation of authority for presidential power.
Funny, Ludwig that your final apeal as to the justice or injustice of the war is not justice but instead education.
And in blithe retort I say that you need to read more.
not really,as I felt the need for this battle long ago. Bush Sr. bent to the will of UN and didnt tidy up gulf war pt.1, and the world whined. We go to finish up, and the world whines. I think operations of this type should have been comitted during Carter's term. I will admit that there have been missteps along the way, and that this and all future wars will be judged on a harsher scale than previous wars. Technology has brought us to a level where 1000 dead is unacceptable for the takeover of a country. Look at the invasion of Europe and what it cost? I do not think that this action is on the same level as WWII, but I think it is gaining in importance. I would rather see us fighting it before it gets out of hand. The hard fact is that wars will exist. We have interests in other parts of the world that we need to fight for, yes even oil. The world will have bullies, better to be on the giving end I think. If the whole world stopped fighting and started singing and holding hands, that would be great. Even then there would be a new someone-or-other thinking that that would be the perfect time to start his own fight. Maybe what you are trying to say is that as humans, we should step up and try to be above animals. That would be great, but it won't happen. I am not sure which cultural prejudices of mine you are referring to as I have many, but if it refers to my dislike of liberal cantidates again that is not a prejudice but an opinion. Sure I am a jingoistic chest beating American bully, but we have the right to be. We have bailed quite a bit of the world out of something or other, and I beleive in recognition. To summarize, I voted on the basis of war, a war I believed in. I am not religious, I am pro-choice, pro-death penalty, and pro-drug legalization. On those points I lose. I am anti-entitlement programs, i.e. no welfare, no affirmative action, and no government healthcare. On those I win. That is why I voted Conservative. I was not duped into voting for anyone because a wolf ad on TV scared me into it. Is my opinion wrong? No, it is my opinion, and yours is no better than mine.
I do not endorse most of what Supersixone said.
Downto,
I agree the issue of the war's legitimacy is probably the more productive arena of discussion, but I don't want to get into it right now. It's been discussed enough. Obviously I don't think it was legitimate--any aggressive war that wasn't justified by the presence of a real danger and couldn't be avoided through continued diplomacy is morally wrong and therefore illegitimate as far as I'm concerned.
As for machismo, I wouldn't know the exact definition. I guess I'd define it as an attitude of aggressive masculine power that goes into excess, and justifies itself in reference to its own power over others. For many people, voting Bush is the other side of a belief that the powerful are justified in exerting their power whenever and however they feel like it. Hence we have a vote against constraints on national violence by either international law, international consensus or even moral discourse. This attitude stems, I think, from the realm of domestic relations for many--the men who feel disenfranchised at home feel empowered by Bush.
The recent film "Team America" expresses this kind of thinking beautifully-the "dicks" may be arrogant and oppressive, but at least they're kicking the shit out of the "assholes" (the degenerate enemy--in this case the coniving Asian who's "ronely").
You know as well as I do that Bush (and the media) went out of his way to appeal to such machismo (sure he could have gone much farther-but this might have carried political risks). For people seduced by aggressive impulses, it's not a question of whether the Iraq war is justified--any violence in the name of America is justified. Violence is productive in itself. The scapegoat (Arabs) should be made to suffer. Some feel that excessive American power will make the Arabs servile--some simply want revenge. In this collective consciousness, the girly and impotent Dems will put a stop to justified aggression while Bush will let it loose. In one of his most revolting soundbytes, Cheney castigated Kerry for advocating a "sensitive" (in reality, sensible) war on terror. "Sensitivity" is of course the arch enemy of machismo--the lurking demon of "degeneration" that threatens to destroy America. Indeed, there are demons and enemies everywhere.
I think there is a discursive trend in America that legitimizes this sort of thinking and brands it acceptable. According to the right-wing media, the left needs to learn the virtues of militarized thinking and barbaric impulses. We need to drop our civilized constraints to destroy our inhuman enemy.
This has got to stop. We need to return to advocating the virtue of peaceful resolution and civilized behavior--not merely in our foreign policy but in our moral code here at home. We need to stop glorifying warriors and get back to honoring statesmen and scientists. Sometimes I feel that the source of our problems is that the discipline America imposed upon itself in the Cold War is unraveling, leading us to drop the ball when it comes to focusing our energies in productive directions.
Are the aggressive and destructive energies I'm talking about necessary, on a limited scale, for the defense of the nation? Probably. Do they need to be controlled in a civilized liberal democracy? Absolutely.
Supersixone,
First of all let me say that none of this is personal--I am referring to a general class of people that I disagree with. I don't know your views or the reasoning behind your vote for Bush. Obviously I disagree--I think Bush has been terrible in the terror war and that reelecting him simply invites more death and destruction. We should focus on defeating those who attacked us on 9/11 and remain at large. Our real enemies could become more powerful as long as they have George Bush as a symbol that the entire Islamic world can justifiably hate.
But what also bothers me about what you say is what I think is a mistaken sense of egalitarianism--where all opinions are equal to others. This seems related to the rebellion against "liberal elites"--that the man on the street is in just a good a position to make a judgement as the expert.
There are indeed good and bad opinions--it is the duty of the citizen to learn to distinguish between the two and use the former to inform himself as well as possible. The citizen has 2 tools to do so--his mind and his moral sensibility.
So if I think something bad is happening in the world, I consider it my duty to say so, in so far as I consider my opinions to be good and justified. I believe in the transformative power of love, reason and communication--and I think there is too much aggression, despair and hatred in the world. And I think it essential to preserve the gains America has made--the gains that place this country in the "civilized world" forged in the Enlightenment period. A rational state has to put the rights of individuals and the demands of justice ahead of the supposed good of the collective (in this case "America"). IMHO these are good opinions, backed by reason and history, and it is our collective duty to defend their rightful place.
Good to point out, of course none of this is personal. You make good points for your opinion, but it still comes down to just that, an opinion. Neither side is going to convince the other, as there are educated people on both sides of the arguement. I suppose I am venting a bit, as a result of being removed from the conservative haven of Texas and transplanted here to liberal NYC. I just see so much of this R.I.P. America B.S. here that it gets to me. Thats the whining I'm referring to. At first I kept my mouth shut, but libs here are ranting about another "stolen" election, and it becomes wearing to the mind. That said, My opinions remain the same. This should have started under Carter with Lebanon, and to his credit he tried, but the operation was ad-hoc at best as the SF community was nowhere near as strong as it was after Reagan. I know in your earlier post you stated you didn't want to discuss the validity of the war, so I won't drag you into it. But the war was the main reason I cast my vote in the direction I chose. I personally don't beleive in the power of love to solve problems. Perhaps my moral barometer reads nil, but nowhere in my life have I seen that approach work. Does it stand to reason that if we never invaded Iraq, and after 11 Sept. we said "Hey, jeez what did you do that for? Sorry you are angry can we help?", that the world would be a better place? If you do, your faith in mankind is truly beyond reproach. That would be akin to a jewish man about to be shoved in the shower at Dachau stopping to say "Why is it that you wish to kill me?" It would make no difference. The people that attacked us are opposed to our belief structure, and fanatics. No amount of reasoning will deter them, and we will never completely destroy them. Just as America has fanatics, but they are contained here. I buy into the ousting of Saddam because he was an opportunist. He or his government were not fanatics per se, but if he could have made a buck helping fanatics he would have. If the government truly knew that the WMD info was trumped up why didn't they just ship some of the real deal there and "find" it? I think that there are reasons behind this war that we will not know of for years. Some may be good, some wrong, but I can't stand by and reason that a President would put himself through a shitstorm of this magnitude for a couple million in oil revenues for himself and his cronies.
Since this thread seems to be winding down, I'd just like to say that ludwig has shown me the light. I need to make my posts more inflammatory and offensive if I want comments on them. You'd think I would've learned that by now. Interesting conversation guys, but I don't have the energy or desire to get involved. I'm sure you're all heart-broken.
Patience, son. One day you too will learn the wisdom of intemperance.
You guys worship Kerry like a god...(?)...ehhh?....come on....(take the bait)....did you hear me? A god!...?
Liberals (that is, real Liberals, not just Democrats) hate Kerry too. Sure, we would've preferred him over Bush (and I must admit I would probably, for non-political reasons, would have wanted him in office rather than Nader, if that was a choice), and I imagine he's a truly nice guy with good values and a passion for justice.
But boy, what a schmuck.