Once again through the hoops we go...
This post relates to this post from Donald Sensing.
As far as I am concerned, the real debate started with this para - Sensing said;
What Cicero seems not to realize is that the Left does not support democracy and in fact is inimical to it. So right off the bat the question assumes that the Left and the rest of us have a common regard for democracy that is not actually there.
That was followed immediately by these three paras, which while explanatory to some extent merely dig the hole a bit deeper...Sensing again;
In the months before the war began, the Left proved its sole purpose was to foil American policy, not to save the Iraqi people from Saddam. Asking the Left how it would have freed the Iraqi people is like asking the NFL how its going to save the rest of the hockey season. The NFL doesn't care whether hockey is played or not, and the Left didn't care whether Saddam was thrown down. If anything, the Left preferred for Saddam to stay in power.
Mass graves, torture rooms, rape as a state punishment, child executions, maimings - the Left simply is not bothered by these things when what is at stake in their minds is an expansive United States (or Great Britain, to a lesser extent).
Because the rest of Cicero's questions basically depend on this one, the Left will be equally unengaged by them, too. All depend on a basic mistake: that the Left is pro-democracy. But it isn't.
The rest of that debate, as far as it went you can read here and the comments that follow.
As I see it, the original statement ( a part of a commentary on a post else where by one "Cicero" ) accused "the Left" of "not support[ing] democracy and in fact [being] inimical to it. The question was raised by a few of just what was meant by "the Left" in the context of his statement.
Well, it seems that we now move a little closer to an answer with the latest post. Donald Sensing, puts it this way -
I will again point out, though, that I continue to make a distinction between the Left and liberals, a point I have made a couple of times before. So does, for example, Michael Totten, who says he is a liberal/progressive. Christopher Hitchens, certainly not a member of the VRWC, has distinguished between liberals/progressives and the Left, going so far as to say that today the Left has swung to the status of reactionary, not progressive or forward thinking. As I concluded, along with others who have addressed, the topic, "In a nutshell, liberals affirm while the Left despises the idea of America."
OK, so it seems that "the Left" does not include liberals. Well, I guess that is a change for the better. Usually, in the lexicon of conservative America the two terms are interchangeable epithets for the same group - those who oppose any policies that the Right try to implement. So, let's move along a little further, past all of the learned quotations...
I am not going to argue the to's and fro's of "Joseph's" comments, but the reaction in the light of what comes next is interesting... Sensing wades in;
Joseph Marshall objected to my claim that the Left opposes democracy in Iraq and the non-left opponents of the Iraq war (not all of whom are liberals) are indifferent to it...
...But Joseph missed the point in any event. It is not a liberal's devotion to democracy at home that is the issue. It is their indifference to it in Iraq.
OK, so now we get somewhere. Donald, that is ABSOLUTELY NOT what you said in your first post. The remainder of your first statement comprised almost entirely a rehash of the old hoes of the "justification" (or otherwise) of the war in Iraq. You were talking about "the Left's" opposition " even in the months prior to the war. You rant about all of the sins of Saddam against humanity being of little account in "the lefts" opposition.
Having clarified that point, that what Donald had said in his first post was somehow being misconstrued, we move to the next. It is about as close to an acknowledgement as I might get seeing that the reference is to my series of posts...
Then we come to a commenter who decides that I am Joseph Geobbels reincarnated, charging that I, "as an apparent man of the cloth, to use and promote the same manner of techniques so beloved of the likes of Goebbels is despicable indeed." Ah, yes, the old canard: "How can you as a minister ... ?" (And not just politics; I was asked the same kind of question about my non-support of the "theory" of Intelligent Design.) Well, friend, it's called speaking truth to power, and power almost never likes it. The implication here is, of course, that as an ordained minister of a generally liberal denomination I should be liberal, too. I don't expect this commenter to provide any actual credentials to qualify him to attack my ministerial faithfulness - funny how he can say I'm the one "tarring" others when all I've done is describe their positions. Well, as we used to say down on the farm, "hit cats howl."
But my charge stands and I make it more strongly now than before: The Left is anti-American and is anti-democratic. Yes, I, like Michael Totten and Richard Baehr, admit that the term, "the Left," is less than precise. After all, Prof. Norman Geras, an English Marxist, supports the Iraq war . (But how surprising is it, really, that a Marxist supports the overthrow of a fascist?)
Bear in mind here, please, that the definition of "the Left" as used by Sensing in the first post has a far wider scope than how he has now "left" it. The heart of my statement was this -
Or are you using the old communist states as the example, and using the inference, the euphemism, the unstated lie to denigrate the left of America.
I suspect that this last is closest to the truth, and I am not expecting an admission that it is so.
But, I must point out that the political technique you are using is one of those very frequently used by the far right government of a European country some seventyfive years back and less, to create the climate of mistrust and racial hatred against sections of their community that they needed to further their parties policies.
Sensing's reaction is about as much as I expected. Well, Mr Sensing, I made no charge against your ability or faithfulness as a Minister. I did express suprise and consternation that from a straight-forward read of the words you wrote I could get to my conclusion. I repeat "Or are you using the old communist states as the example, and using the inference, the euphemism, the unstated lie to denigrate the left of America.
". My conclusion that "... for you, as an apparent man of the cloth, to use and promote the same manner of techniques so beloved of the likes of Goebbels is despicable indeed.
I stand by that statement. The subsequent explanation and clarification is in fact a contradiction of the original post. Your "backtrack", Mr Sensing, only compounds the lie of the first post. Was it intentional? I do not know. I leave that to your conscience.
The remainder of this latest post from Mr Sensing starts with -
Regarding the Iraq war and the subsequent democratization in progress there, there are only five possible positions from which it can be opposed: Ideological, Strategic, Partisan political, Isolationist, Moral/religious.
From there it returns to a long and very learned exposition on the rights of the invasion of Iraq with very little weight given to - not the wrongs, though there can be many depending on your point of view - the very many inconsistencies of the US position prior to the invasion.
Well, I have heard those arguments before, from a great many people, and they all follow the same logic. I am not going to repeat or even try to debate the matter - it is so cliched on both sides that it is like a Hollywood film script, and almost as pointless.
Can I please try again, Mr Sensing...
Your latest post includes this little gem -
Well, friend, it's called speaking truth to power, and power almost never likes it.
What a fascinating little sentence it is. It says much, but has little meaning either in context (as earlier quoted) or out of context (as here). I can hear the preacher coming through in the admonishing "Well, friend...".
Who is "speaking truth to power"? I have no power at the scale of the debate at hand, but I can accept that I speak truth. You claim to be on the side of power, and you seem not to like the truth that I have spoken.
Or is it intended the other way round? Am I the one with power? Hardly! If you maintain that you are the one speaking truth then there is a real problem. If this is the case then there is one error and another untruth in the sentence. Not a good continuance at all.
No, Mr Sensing. Can I draw a parallel for you. It centres on a word that you have not used to my knowledge and I am not making the accusation that you have. I use it as illustration of the process that my argument is based upon.
__________________________________________________________________________
The word is "Islamofascist". I have posted earlier how I see the meaning of the word. Here I want to talk a little about how and why it has suddenly appeared in the lexicon of American politics.
The first reaction I had on seeing it was the immediate connection between Islam and the Italian Fascisti of Benito Mussolini. The "mind picture" of someone of my age is immediate - jackboots, brown shirts, totalitarian government, despotism...
Then comes the application of the term. Those fighting directly against the occupation of Iraq have been given the term "Insurgent" with its implication (for those who don't use their dictionary to know that insurgency is in fact rising in opposition to established authority) of someone from outside coming in to create trouble. So, it can not be that group.
The Baathist remnants and the Sunni? Not likely that they could be wanting to establish authoritarian government. Yes I know that is what Hussein was doing. Give them credit for learning one lesson out of this chapter in their history.
The Shi'a? That is truly closer to home but for as long as al Sistani can moderate the radicals such as Sadr the appelation would not be that a propos.
No, the immediate application is across the border, to the theocracy of Iran. There is a wider application as well, but it is still centred on the idea of theocratic government (government by a religion) as espoused by the many "radical" imams in other parts of the Islam world. (Note here, that due to the time taken to complete and moderate this post to my satisfaction, it has been pointed out in comment to the "islamofascist" post that Taliban and alQaeda also fall in the category. A point I had missed.)
The term , Islamofascist, then would seem to have an appropriate base, a meaning that has proper construction and application - as much as I might not like it. It extends from there back into Iraq via the proven and well documented connections between the Teheran theocracy and the likes of Sadr and the Mahdi Army
But, when it is used in the course of discussing Iraq it is used on a global basis. There is no limit placed on its application. It is used in the same way as Mr Sensing's use of the word "left" in the post that began the debate. From there comes the implication that those fighting against the occupying forces in Iraq are in some way supporting the "islamofascism" of the Teheran government. (and indirectly Taliban and alQaeda)
To appreciate the next step, think for a moment how "islamofascist" sounds. Repeat it out loud several times and see how it rolls from the tongue so easily. It is a GREAT word. It can be used as a cuss word, it can be applied to someone whose religion you hate, it can applied with great feeling to those who oppose the ideas with which you are most comfortable. It is a GREAT word. It has power. It has presence. And its spits venom in all its syllables. And we have the euphemism. The term that denigrates and belittles a potential enemy.
A word such as this, a word of power, gains stature with repetition. People like the sound. They might not appreciate the niceties of its exact meaning, but they understand that it has much to do with the opposition in Iraq. The word gains a following, a currency in its own society. The use now has lost the exact meaning. It has much wider coinage than was originally intended. Or has it? The anonymous birth of a word such as "islamofascist" is not accident. Someone, somewhere, for reasons of their own has seen the possibilities. There is the birth of the lie.
But we still need to be careful with this word. It has a flaw, a weakness, in its global application. It has outgrown its base. It has become top heavy. But for those that use the word, it can also use that frailty as a strength. It can be denied. "Oh, friend, you misunderstand me. As I have said so many times before I was actually meaning..."
Does that sound familiar, Mr Sensing?
Subsequent edit - sorry about the links, I seem to keep burrowing to his Haloscan files rather than the original posts. I will try again...this time with the right (not political right, but correct right) permalinks. How stupid of me...
12 comments:
The point of this post is not entirely clear to me.
If it is the idea that a term for ones 'enemies' can be broadened to include people beyond it's original meaning or later used to include people who the original definition should never apply to that is fairly obvious, and fairly universal.
If it is that we should not try to come up with precise terms, that hopefully will be generally understood, for various strains of political thought than I have to disagree with you.
As a side note, in America at least, the term 'the Right' generally refers to a broad based group that includes everything from libertarians to neo-cons, to old school conservative to the religious right and the far right of Pat Buchanan. Usually, the term 'the Left' is not used for a similar broad based coalition on the left side of the political spectrum, rather it is more common to encounter the term 'Liberals' for this group.
It is also apparent that their is a loose coalition of groups, often called the Far Left, but sometimes referred to as Leftists or, as apparently Sensing was doing simply the Left. I don't like the last usage because it can be very unclear.
Nonetheless, this group, comprised of mostly Anti-Globalization groups, Anarchists, Communisits and similar groups can, in my opinion, be legitimately discribed as being anti-american (most of these groups would explicity agree with me on that discription.) What is even more troubling is that for most in these groups, as long as an entity is against America they are in support of it, any other sins it may have are washed away by that one, to them, over-riding virtue.
It would be a mistake to say that all who opposed the Iraq war are like this. However, because these groups (look up Internation Answer) became the early banner carriers of the anti-war movement and the loudest anti-war voices it is an easy mistake to make.
Dave, the point at debate comes from the next step on from your comment.
I am saying that, in this instance the use of the term "the left" was wrong. It was too loose, it was ill defined in the context; it did not say what the Reverend now says he meant.So from that point of view he should have been MORE specific, not less.
I understand and agree the use of the term "liberal". It is, however, another of the terms that come into the category that I dispute in my post. The intended meaning these days is no longer the actual meaning of the word. "Liberal" has become a propaganda term used by the right; a synonym and epithet for everyone from Marxist/Leninist and Castro follower through to (is it?) Pat Buchanan; a shorthand term for everyone who opposes the policies of the present administration.The point in this, as I said in a comment to another blog, that Donald Sensing is guilty of political shorthand. In this instance he has made a connection which is quite invalid.
But really, the thing that makes me the most angry - and the Reverend is far, a very long far, from the worst at this - is the falsity of the rhetoric. Over and again you will find the same tired old arguments being pulled out to defeat this, to justify that, to try and win the smallest of advantages. There is nothing new. If one side seems to be gaining an advantage the other pulls out its stock in trade of these generalised epithets and politicised labels.
It is, as I have tried to point out, nothing more than unadulterated pure propaganda. Hence the connection to Herr Goebbles.
The sad thing really is that he does himself no good by so doing...
wanted to leave you a trackback of some sort, check out my blog, aanddoubleu.blogspot.com, I linked/wrote a bit about this...
Thanks for stopping by Straight Shot. The difficulty, of course, from the Reverend's viewpoint, is that any opposition to the course of events in Iraq is illegitimate because the motives of our Government are pure and the results are desirable, whether the principles behind them are sound or not.
All one can do is keep patiently pointing out that principles matter.
Where to start, P?? You’ve got two distinct issues which merit comment.
American politics has always been polemic. Currently, the Right is synonymous with religious fanaticism, intolerance and corporate greed, while the Left is know as a haven for Eco-terrorism, UN mandates and Government subsidies.
I agree with the comparisons with Michael Totten and Christopher Hitchens since I’m cut from the same cloth. I was a hard core ‘liberal’ during the `80s and the Reagan years, cruising the college campuses opposed to America’s actions in Central America. As you’ve seen on my blog, I espouse Churchill’s belief of starting as a liberal and finishing as a conservative, so I’m not quite sure of your first point….
Now while I may not follow your first point, I’m confused with your second. So is my better half, who was reading over my shoulder and I had to explain you’re NZ…
OK, so your first thought of Islamofacist was ‘the immediate connection between Islam and the Italian Fascisti of Benito Mussolini. The "mind picture" of someone of my age is immediate - jackboots, brown shirts, totalitarian government, despotism.…’ Well, that’s a pretty accurate image of the Taliban pulling women into the street and or stadium, and executing them. Can’t get any clear than that, eh? Now while I was careful not to point a finger at Iran in a previous comment, they can’t be thought of much different when they execute young girls for being raped or being abused by relatives. How about the execution of a young girl who while being mentally disabled was used as a prostitute by her father??? He was let off with a warning.
Also, I’ve never heard, in the blogsphere, the ‘insurgents’ called Islamofacists. In fact, it’s a term not used in Iraq. Usually the term is reserved for Taliban and al-Qaeda (and their ilk), while I’ve used it during the murderous siege of the Russian school since their purpose was to strike fear into the region.
So, for you to claim ‘a birth of a lie’ is quite disingenuous. Just because you’ve recently discovered the term Islamofacists, don’t claim it ‘can also use that frailty as a strength’ without acknowledging the term has validation.
Joseph, that is a good point.
It raises however a spectre that runs through my mind and a subject upon which I have been tempted to write on several occasions far more specifically than I have to this point.
The use of individual terms and the holding of specific attitudes is in fact only a very small part of the whole.
There is no way that I can use or present the argument in relation to an individual, that would be both demeaning to that person and would leave me open to justifiable criticism.
At this point I will just say that the idea stems from a radio interview I heard about two years back, or it may have been three. The interview was with an American gent, his name is long gone from memory, and the topic was in fact about advertising.
This gent opined that Americans were the most propagandised people in the world.
Now, please remember, that statement was equating non-political advertising with the principles of propaganda. But it is no great step to move from that into the political arena.
No, MacBoar, I was not saying that Islamofascist was a term in use in Iraq.
The only place where I have seen it thus far has been in right-wing, and some left wing American blogs.
The picture that you paint as the Taliban, is accurate and has evidence. That is where the "meaning" starts.
But, as the Reverend has with his use of the term "the left", Islamofascist can be used indiscriminately and without care for the exact meaning in the context. At that point the term moves from accuracy to inaccuracy.
The "lie" is when the inaccuracy is unchallenged and accepted in the context of an epithet for a far wider group than the Taliban.
That "degeneration of meaning" is one of the moving forces behind propaganda... of the worst kind.
It was that degeneration of meaning that led to my original challenge to the Reverend.
"Islamofacist" is certainly a term that orinated in the right-wing blogosphere. I doubt that many in Iraq or Afghanistan have heard of or use that term.
The only group in Iraq that it should be applied to is probably Zarqawi's group. Certainly Zarqawi, being a Jordanian, is not an Iraqi insurgent although there is good arguement that he is more Baathist with Al-Qaeda trappings than a taliban style Islamofacist. Regardless, I don't recall seeing many, if any, uses of that term to describe him.
In regard to Sensing, I still think you are being over-sensitive here. It is not uncommon for people to develop a short hand when talking about things. I don't read Sensing frequently, but I will admit in my conversations with friends about this sort of thing I have been known to shorten the term 'far left' to just left as distinct from liberals when discussing trends. Assuming my audience understands my terms there is nothing wrong with this.
In fairness is Sensings use of the term 'Left' and more wrong, or more inaccurate than the way you and others use the term 'Right' at times? The right is no more monolithic than the left.
I would not be surprised at all that Americans are subject to more 'propaganda' than anyone else. However, I suspect that when it comes to politics this is a strength and not a weakness.
First off, the best propagandists (another somewhat innaccurate term if we are discussing all means of influencing someone) will be employed selling us beer and cars, not political ideas. Simply put, there is more money in it.
Secondly, I would be that all of that propaganda helps us develop an 'immunity' to it, at least to a degree. While I have no direct proof of this, when you look back at historical propaganda, even stuff that was very effective, it seems simplistic and obvious. Therefore, I conclude we are now more cunning at detecting such things making the propagandist's job more difficult. I would assume that this is because exposure to these techniques makes them easier to detect, requiring more sophisticated methods to actually achieve influence.
Obviously, the two reasons here would have a synergistic effect.
Dave, the most dangerous propaganda is that which enters the everyday language, as or after the true meaning has been lost.
I submit that terms such as "the left", "the right", "Christian Conservative", even "red-neck" would fall into this category. The last has gone through the phase of being an epithet and now has its own "new" meaning.
Note please that I am trying to be non-partisan here.
I submit further that "the left" as used by Donald Sensing (and so many others), and despite his avowed separation of "the left" from "liberals", is a term that has the denigrating and demeaning connotations that true propaganda has at its heart.
THAT is when it becomes dangerous - when the word and its adverse connotations are accepted without question, without comment, and with agreement of the connotations.
Think of it this way. At what point did the German word "Jude" take on the emotional and racial connotations that Goebbels and co put on it? Before Krystalnacht or after? Extreme example, included to make the point.
Curious..would you call censorship propaganda?
No, grey, censorship is censorship.
Propaganda in the context of my discussion here is the use of a word or words with the intention that they have political meanings and connotations outside of the context.
So, in the case of Rev. Sensings "...the left..." he has not, in the first instance, excluded "liberals" as among those who are "disloyal to the US".
He has since, on his own site, muddied that water to the extent that no one can now be sure of exactly what he means by "the left" at any given time.
While you might argue that "censorship" as a "refusal to publish" is a bad thing, a denial of your right, there is a balance here to be observed.
HOW an individual might maintain that balance between freedom of expression and the publisher's rights can range from "no right to comment - no facility", through to "members only", then to "approved and moderated", and so on to "total free slather" at the other end of the spectrum.
Do not misunderstand. IF, AT ANY TIME, there are comments on my blogs which I think (unilaterally and without debate) are inappropriate they will be removed. IF AN INDIVIDUAL persists in making posts which I determine to be inappropriate then I will remove all comments from that individual without a blink.
On the other side I will not stop someone from making a total ass of themselves if they want. I will just ignore their posts ( I know there are many in blogosphere that do that to me :D ) as long as they are within the realms of what I (again unilaterally and without debate) consider appropriate for my blogs.
I do not consider that a denial of anyone's right to self expression.
Similarly, I am not going to stop anyone from displaying pictures of their mates chundering in the loo if that is what turns them on. That is their expression of their personality - who is to say they should not. However, in my opinion it does display a rather juvenile level of intellect...
I do find vomit to be amusing. If that’s juvenile, then I’m juvenile. You keep bringing that up and frankly, I don't see any relevence to the issues at hand. I may be juvenile, but I am a highly educated one.
You still don’t seem to understand what was going on Al’s blog. Frankly, I don’t really care, because it seems to me that I could try to explain myself until I’m blue in the face to you and it wouldn’t matter. You’ve already decided that I’m your enemy. With that, I take my leave.
Post a Comment