My World of Political Discourse
Lately I've been contemplating the state of our political discourse. This is personal, as my attempts to discuss politics have been met with comments such as the following:
- We know you hate the CIA, Dan.
- Dan, you're an example of a left winger who is so extreme that you have similar views to extreme right wingers (see Horseshoe Theory) .
To the first of these I say, Hate the lie, not the liar. The CIA has a job to do, and it often involves lying. The lies, or propaganda, may be spread with good intentions, or as attempts to gain or maintain power. I don't hate the CIA. I don't know enough about the organization, which is very secretive. There may be CIA agents and employees who make great sacrifices for the benefit of us civilians. The CIA is not a monolith. It has factions, some of which are trying to do things I would agree with and others that do things with which I disagree.
The more productive discussion is more specific. For example, if it appears that a particular story, which is widely circulated and attributed to intelligence source, is false, it is preferable to focus on that issue (the truth). Credibility, reputation, and motivation are relevant in ascertaining the probability that a particular story or fact is true.
With regard to the Horseshoe Theory, I would again say that focusing on specific issues is generally more constructive. If both the left wing and right wing advocate violent overthrow of the government, that is one thing. If both the left and right wing distrust reporting on Russiagate, that is another. There is some basis to horseshoe theory in that extremists, by definition, distrust the establishment (center). But guilt by association should be avoided. Sometimes the establishment is on the side of the truth, and sometimes they are not. The more productive conversation focuses on the truth as opposed to a label on a political spectrum.
Truth is the First Casualty of Wars
I've lived through the Cold War, the Vietnam War, numerous middle eastern wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria), and now, open partisan warfare (Russia elected Trump, January 6 insurrection…). I think it's objectively true that the more heated the conflict, the more attention is paid to defeating the enemy by whatever means necessary, including propaganda and related forms of misinformation.
Matt Taibbi just posted To Stop War, America Needs a Third Party.
The American political system has been captured by the military, and only an independent political power can prevent the next Afghanistan... as the performance of the legacy media in the last few weeks shows, the national commentariat is also fully occupied by the military establishment. Staffed from top to bottom by spooks and hawks, the corporate press’s focus from the pre-Iraq firing of Phil Donahue through the past few weeks of guest star appearances on CNN, Fox, and MSNBC by the likes of Leon Panetta, John Bolton, Karl Rove, David Petraeus and Marc Thiessen — all people with direct involvement in the Afghan mess — has been the same. It keeps the public distracted with inane tactical issues or fleeting partisan controversies, leaving the larger problem of a continually expanding Fortress America unexamined.
Taibbi shows of a clip of Eisenhower's farewell address to the American people warning of the influence of the military industrial complex. Quoting Eisenhower:
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
What Do I Stand For?
I'm not a pacifist, and I am willing to fight and probably even lie for a good cause. But I also try to be an alert and knowledgeable citizen, trying to promote democracy and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. Which conflicts are worth killing and lying for? Foreign enemies such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, or Russia? Domestic political foes such as Trump or Hillary? Or to support those who work to make the world a better place peacefully, such as Bernie Bros and Greens? I'm with the peaceniks. Perhaps I will change someday when I feel truly threatened by another country or domestic party, but for the moment I don't find either Democrats or Republicans to be worth fighting for or against. Rather I feel like fighting both Democrats and Republicans in an honest and non-violent manner. More constructively, I can work with Democrats, Republicans, and everyone else as necessary on a case by case to promote the public interest. At the present time, truth and attention to priorities are my highest goals. I see no obvious group or person to pledge my loyalty to, so my political support is up for grabs.
