An interesting comment from one of us about ourselves.

[DarkPhenyx]

Are we brave enough to listen?

[Spentastic]

1. Hmmm

Seems to me that the group depicted in that picture are probably correct. There's nothing wrong with feeling the same way IF it's not a maniuplated situation.

I know many left wingers. ALL of them think that Bush is a fuckwit. This is not group think. No one told them to feel that way.

What is occurring on the right is different. They have spokesmen that dissemminate a message which is adhered to by their masses of adoring fans. Give me an example of a monolithic left.

[DarkPhenyx]

4. In large groups?

Definately not a good idea. We may all feel it is right, like those supporting Bush and his war. But what if we are wrong? If the pressure to agree and support is so strong that those who have legitimate concerns and issues are drowned out or supressed then we are in grave danger of falling on our asses.

No matter how much we believe, collectively, that we are right...we may still be wrong.

[dpibel]

5. What would be an example of this?

Are you concerned that Bush actually might not be a fuckwit?

Are you concerned that the War in Iraq might actually not be the catastrophe that it is?

What are these heavy, doubtful issues about which we all march in lockstep, but about which we might be embarassingly wrong?

I'm a little weary of the "liberals all march in lockstep" idea. It's a very popular line among the denizens of the other side. I'm hard pressed to find it around here. How do we get all these long flaming threads going if the only thing we ever say is, "You got that right!" and "What he/she said!"?

So fill me in on this. Where's the lockstep march about things that are still 'way up in the air?

[DarkPhenyx]

13. Are you willing to listen...

...and talk about the real issues or do you wish to continue to blab on about your pet issues?

The statement that liberals walk in lockstep is no more true or false than saying that the conservative do the same thing. There are issues where both sides are more prone to do so than others. There are issues where each side is divided within itself as well. The danger is that, on those issues where we are "locked", that we feel so strongly that we are right that we refuse to admit we may be wrong. A lot of bad science happens that way. A lot of bad politics too.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

40. Here is the science on Fascism, a form of group-think that is NOT liberal.

If you are trying to make the point that emotion can blur details and produce some me-too-echoing, of course. But the larger issue of how groups are intentionally stampeded into hateful violence is the real story. And you are dead wrong if you are trying to say that liberals are just as susceptible to illegal war and unwarranted violence.

Fear leads to violence and conservatives, who fear change more than liberals, are much more susceptible to the manipulation we are now suffering in the US called FASCISM.

I have studied the history, psychology, linguistics, and tactics of fascism in depth over the last few years. I've learned that nationalist brain washing is the single most important tool of fascism. Group think is needed to prevent independent thought and action apart from the herd. Conformity leads to atrocity.

Here are some links I've put together to illustrate and support this:


Like the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing warning Dubya of Al Queda's ominous threats, the topic of Fascism is more than just 'historical.'

Many people are dismissive of the F-word as mere rhetoric since they haven't really looked into it beyond reruns of old WWII footage on the History Channel, sometimes mockingly called 'the Hitler channel.' Unfortunately, the pictures now can be seen in shockingly realistic color.

Ignore it at your peril. It is not ignoring you. It can find you and no remote will switch it off. My governor is a former Austrian body-builder and Hitler admirer turned movie action-figure who was elected (?) to run the world's fifth largest economy. While I'd prefer that this was just a sci-fi tale written by Kurt Vonnegut, I've learned to be wary of unexpected and undesired outcomes. I no longer assume that progressive justice or humane values inevitably bloom out of talk of freedom wrapped in red-white-and-blue bunting.

So I've put together some links to examine this destructive social phenomenon that I can't resist sharing with anyone who will listen since I judge it to be a rising tide that many won't notice until they are choking on it and wondering where the liberty they used to breathe went and what is that awful smell?

A famous British psychologist did an analysis of Bush*'s family history and personality. Little Georgie was abused, belittled, and overshadowed by his parents so he became an alcoholic, self-destructive, anti-intellectual, and cruel 'authoritarian personality.' His rebellion against his parents is killing many innocents.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1033904,00.html
(So George, How Do You Feel About Your Mom and Dad?

This 'authoritarian' personality is the precursor to Fascism Receptivity as defined by researchers in 1950 who tried to understand how large populations could embrace dictators like Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler. Many Americans match the profile, especially religious fundamentalists. Surprised? I didn't think so. But no comparisons with Hitler, OK? 'Chosen Few' doesn't mean 'Master Race'...does it?
http://www.anesi.com/fscale.htm
(The F Scale Questionnaire to Determine Fascist Receptivity)

Another indictment of cruelty comes from this study on the components of conservatism studied in an academic model. It confirms differences we have noticed as liberals: fear of change, acceptance of inequality, black and white thinking, targeting of 'others.'
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml
(What Makes a Political Conservative)

Now, the 14 scary symptoms of Fascism as a social phenomenon to tie it all together even...worse.
http://empirewatch.org/pages/_archives/fascism/pages/14_symptoms.html
(The Fourteen Symptoms of Fascism)

And now, an analysis of a Bush* State of the Union speech that illustrates the linguistic science of abusive speech used to psychologically manipulate and deceive the listener, something White House speech writers have mastered to diminish the power of the listener. Yes, the counterrevolution has been televised.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/130534_focusecond13.html
(The Power of the Presidency Resides in Language as Well as Law)

This article explains the power of repetition as mind programming and the tactics of disinformation and segregation of 'conspiracy' ideas to hide knowledge of government manipulation through the use of television and other ubiquitous media. The 1938 radio broadcast of 'The War of the Worlds' confirmed the power of mass deception that has been exploited for decades.
New! Improved! Coming to a theater near you!
http://www.mackwhite.com/tv.html
(The TV Hive Mind)

Here is an article that explores the marketing power of fear used by Detroit to sell Americans SUVs, along with help from Arnold Schwarzenegger and the first Bush Gulf war. The same methods were used to link these previous sales to the gutting of the Bill of Rights and an unjustified pre-emptive war all at the same time. What a campaign!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,995252,00.html
Trading On Fear

[DarkPhenyx]

49. You are equating group think with Fascism.

The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. It is entirely possible to have one w/o the other. You are also equating it with violence. Again, this need not be the case. Same for the grouping of fear.

Or do you disagree?

[sangh0]

52. There's a good reason for that

The two DO necesarily go hand in hand. And Facism also requires violence. So is the grouping of fear.

[DarkPhenyx]

54. Sadly you are mistaken.

Fortunately I have learned that it will do no good to debate it with you. Even providing examples will not shift your thinking on teh matter. Closed minds are such a waste. Ah, well.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

55. I agree. An important point Chomsky makes in 'Understanding Power'

is that there are a number of different reasons that things happen and pat simple explanations bely more sophisicated understandings.

For instance, he points out that 'power' protects itself in a rational way as any other organism would. This is the AMORALITY of a corporation or a nation state.

At the same time, there are specific people who intentionally harm other people out of self-interest or ideology and that is IMMORALITY.

And these differentiated forces intertwine and alternate and overlap etc. etc.

Republicans are not of just one mind, our troops are not of just one mind, Democrats are not of just one mind. But there are generalities to made that are valid and worth considering since we are talking about millions of people times many years of experience.

Perhaps the point you were trying to make in initiating this thread was that polarization can be blinding. And you see how much heat there is in response. People are so outraged at the deceptions, slaughter, and destruction that many exploded 'are you implying I don't know what's going on??!! Just who's side are you on??!!'

I posted that info. about the psychology of fascism because I judge (not believe, judge based on info.) that conservatism is much much much more prone to 'lock-step' group-think.

The values of liberals are much more open to accepting diversity, change, and defending underdogs from overdogs. Liberals do not tolerate percieved attacks on these values. That is the main 'lock-step' group think that liberals are 'guilty' of .

And that is one hell of a good thing to be 'guilty' of. You might as well call Amnesty International a 'lock-step group-think' organization because they ALL decry torture.

See what I mean? Commonality of values doesn't equal 'group-think' which is based on the fear of being an outsider, that is , social pressure.

[DarkPhenyx]

60. I understand what you are saying.

I disagree with your statement about liberals being more tolerant and less prone to lockstep. Take, for example, this thread here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1538890

I have stated in this thread, several times, that I condemn her action and am not defendng them. However because I didn't completely agree that it made her unfit to be a mother I am suddenly the whipping boy of the thread.

I have had similar experiences on several different subjects. Usually over very simple differences, and when in general I agree with the concept. I frequently get the "how can you call yourself a liberal if..." rapidly follwed by a chorus of "yeah you told him".

I think, if we looked objectively, we would find many instances where desire to be included happened within the liberal community. PETA might be a good place to start.

You are right that not all commonality of values is group speak...but when that commonality reaches a point where very basic disagreements with an idea results in a strong, unthinking, reaction from the rest of the group then I think it's time to start taking a closer look.

<on edit>

Now that I am home I'll have to take more time to read through the links you provided. Thank you for them.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

62. After reading that thread, I see what you mean.

I think that the anonymity and frustration at this site can induce the equivalent of verbal road-rage.

I agree that there are plenty of people at this site who get personal at the drop of a hat. Many I wouldn't even describe necessarily as 'liberal.' And I get the impression that your communicating style tends to be more...clinical? That is, prone to pointing out erroneous or inconsistent responses in others without offering any agreement. And folks at this site are extremely vigilant and kinda combative for two reasons:

1) They (we) are in a constant state of outrage at bloody destruction enabled by lies and ignorance.

2) There is a malicious and intellectually hostile element that likes to come here just to insult, disrupt, or generally antagonize.

This is compounded by these very elements that a sociological researcher posted as being conducive to CAUSING TORTURE(!) CHECK THIS OUT, VERY COGENT:

>>>>>>>>>>
"In the current situation, we must not allow the politicians and pentagon to dismiss the seriousness of what happened with the usual dispositional analysis of a few bad apples in a good barrel. Bush said it should not reflect on the good nature of all Americans or our military.
Wrong. The situational analysis says the barrel of war is filled with vinegar that will transform good cucumbers into sour pickles and will always do it to make the majority of good people, men and women, into perpetrators of evil, where there is:

anonymity-deindividuation, dehumanization, secrecy, diffusion of responsibility, social modeling, big power differentials, frustration, feelings of revenge,and obedience to authority.

----------------------------------------
Do you take the antagonism you have experienced on this site to be representative of 'liberals?' There are haters and them-vs.-us types to be sure. Too many who think all Republicans or other tags think the same way.
But you also can be guilty of that which you are decrying, Dark Phenyx>>>.
Example from that thread:
CWebster (1000+ posts) Thu May-06-04 05:24 AM
Response to Reply #12

17. It is most shocking because it is a woman
And women, like minorities pay the price--(see Martha Stewart, whose crimes were child's play compared to the big boys whose club she sought to join)to give cover to white men who mostly maintain control and start wars (with their reptilian minds )


DarkPhenyx (1000+ posts) Thu May-06-04 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #17

79. Nice sexist observation.
You convienently forget that her male companions are getting charged as well. Hypocrasy and bigotry should ahve no place in our cause. Too bad we can't get rid of it.
---------------------------
Seems to me CWebster was making the point that sexism was opening women up to disproportionate targeting. A valid point.

I think you got affected by your disdain for a simple verbal pile-on of a sanctioned target and began to throw verbal darts. Hard to resist it, isn't it? None of us are any more than human.

One must be willing to post more than argumentative one-liners if one wishes to communicate more than simple disagreement which provokes. Personally, I tend to write at length...like this.

I've also noticed a tendency of groups of people who are too much alike becoming aggressive. I guess this partly affirms what you are asserting, doesn't it?

Example: I used to be sound guy at a club in a college town with a strong gay and lesbian community. The club would sometimes have a lesbian folky on stage and the audience would be all lesbians-over 200. And the waitstaff was mostly lesbian yet they dreaded these nights because they made no tips and were worked to death by the customers.

Understand, this isn't to describe stereotypical characteristics of lesbians. Not at all. It is to suggest that when a group becomes completely homogenous, it induces an air of impunity or assertiveness because of the strength-in-numbers syndrome. A room full of accountants or morticians can get a bit fraternity like. I know. I've worked Christmas parties that were just one group.

The socialized brain that works to be tolerant and understanding goes flabby when everyone is the same. Yes, that happens at democraticunderground but I find differences and debate more interesting than pile-on agreements.


-------------------------
Again, I think that the anonymity and frustration at this site can induce the equivalent of verbal road-rage and clear signalling is the best way to navigate in a satisfying way.

[drfemoe]

63. I appreciate

your posts ...

[IrateCitizen]

64. Don't mistake "brute dynamics" for lockstep thought

When dealing with DU, while I don't believe that people on the left are really "lockstep", they do share certain similar belief structures on the whole. However, despite the fact that the most liberal and conservative regular posters here probably agree on about 75% of everything, we consistently focus on the smaller percentage that divides us. That's not evident of lockstep thought.

What you were subjected to on the thread you cited was probably more brute dynamics than anything else. Basically, what that is is a symptom of an anonymous internet discussion board, where people are free to respond to each other in ways they normally wouldn't if there were really a possiblity of retribution. It can also result in a "piling on" effect -- which you certainly experienced -- that is still different from "lockstep" thought.

[dpibel]

48. Wow! What can I possibly say?

Since I wasn't aware (thoughtless person that I am) that I was blabbing on about my pet issues, I guess can't promise not to continue. But I'll sure try!

I actually thought that my question was an attempt to talk about the "real issues." You've now restated your vague proposition: there are some issues where "we feel so strongly that we are right that we rufuse to admit we may be wrong."

I continue to want to know what I'm supposed to be wary of. What are some examples of such issues?

I'm willing to listen. Are you willing to talk?

[drfemoe]

6. Pareto's Principle

* Grave Danger Alert *

[DarkPhenyx]

11. Explain please.

I don't recognize the principle you mention.

[drfemoe]

16. I'm so glad you asked ..

"In 1906, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto created a mathematical formula to describe the unequal distribution of wealth in his country, observing that twenty percent of the people owned eighty percent of the wealth." {We should be so lucky today.} ...

Dr. Joseph Juran, working in the US in the 1930s and 40s recognized a universal principle he called the "vital few and trivial many" and reduced it to writing.
...
As a result, Dr. Juran's observation of the "vital few and trivial many", the principle that 20 percent of something always are responsible for 80 percent of the results, became known as Pareto's Principle or the 80/20 Rule. "
http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/Pareto081202.htm

google for more fascinating information on the principle as it applies to management.

What I am afraid of, in the current setting, is that 20% of the Democrats are making the decisions for the remaining 80% as well.

This all started percolating last night as I argued with my RW (MBA) roommate. I'm familiar with the concept from years in customer support work, where we know that 20% of the customers make 80% of the complaints. Managers will tell you that 20% of their employees generate 80% of the results. Skinner might be able to tell you that 20% of DUers make 80% of the donations to the site.

I'm still formulating the implications for the current political climate, so I'm certainly not claiming to have it all figured out or have THE solution (yet).

But this is what I know so far ..
I have a visceral distaste for whoosh*. For whatever reason. A lot of us around here do. A lot of RWers don't. So going on attack mode on the flesh and blood that turns my gut is not going to convince any one who doesn't have the same emotional reaction that I do.

What I found was, that when I mentioned the ENVIRONMENT, RW rm's ears perked up. Cannot argue that it is baaaaad for our planet to dump infinite waste into the atmosphere, etc. Even whoosh* doesn't think so. That's why it's called *Clear Skies* (the marketing name).

We continued to *argue* until we reached the realization that we BOTH do not like the corporate take over of our nation. Suddenly, we are on the SAME SIDE.

There's much more. I'm still figuring it out. It's better known as focusing on the *issues*. Emotional human beings tend to react in emotional ways (another marketing truism). As long as we participate and, really, are willing dupes, to the "unthinking", "deep-seated" manipulation, we ALL lose. We have 20% (or less) of the population setting the agenda for all of us. The entire WORLD agenda.

Would you estimate that at least 80% of humanity would settle for *Peace*? Yet a fraction of humanity sets us up to fail so that they can reap the rewards for themselves. We must change this dynamic, or change the 20%, if we hope to survive.

Please share your thoughts.

[DarkPhenyx]

23. Thank you!

I've learned something today.

[IrateCitizen]

27. Thought-provoking post

drfemoe, your post got me thinking in several ways.

First, I'll focus on the purely electoral matters regarding your 80/20 rule. I think that, when it comes to true power politics in this country, the 20% is way too high. I'd say it's closer to 0.01% or thereabouts. That, however, does not diminish the importance of the 20% of whom you speak, because they do have a great deal of indirect influence.

Propaganda efforts are largely focused on this 20%, because they are the group that can be readily expected to turn out and vote, and to follow issues rather closely, regardless of whether they are "right", "left" or "center". Noam Chomsky has put forth this proposition, so I'm kind of paraphrasing him the best as I can remember here. Do you recall Judith Miller's columns leading up to the Iraq invasion in which she repeatedly pimped the claims of WMD's within Iraq? I can think of no clearer of an instance of the propagandizing of this 20% than that in the current context. Couple those efforts with Tom Friedman's "insight", and you have a full frontal assault on public opinion without their even knowing it.

Now, this isn't saying that the remaining 80% doesn't need to be swayed, but they're much easier. They're passive, so they can be fed more simplistic, black/white arguments via the NY Post, Fox News, etc. They also don't vote in as large of numbers, so they're not as critical as that 20%.

Now, moving on to deeper matters, the only way that those who rule are able to is due to the complicity of that 20%. Power is only as effective as the amount of cooperation -- whether it be active or passive -- that it can find within a society. This matters little whether that society is a democracy or a dictatorship. The only thing that is different is the means of control -- the old analogy "propaganda is to a democracy as force is to a dictatorship".

Here in the US, we have lots of toys and trinkets that keep us constantly distracted and complacent. We've bought into the exploitation of our wants to the extent that we have actually sacrificed happiness and QUALITY of life in pursuit of standards of living. However, as you cited in your discussions with your RW roommate, there are many of us who are aware of just how destructive we're being -- the question is whether or not we are willing to do what is necessary to change it.

A few weeks ago, in celebration of Earth Day, my UU minister gave a sermon on the spiritual obligation of environmentalism, and how we ALL contribute to the spoiling of the earth. Considering that my fellowship is in northern Westchester Co., NY, it could be best said that her sermon was aimed at "afflicting the comfortable". In fact, the subject causes a great deal of discomfort and avoidance within my congregation, because it forces people to look at their own complicity and cooperation in the current state of affairs.

However, just imagine if a large part of that 20% were able to cast off these limitations of passive cooperation, and instead do the right thing together. If it were done en masse, the conversion would not be nearly as difficult as a few people here and a few people there. You would then really see your 80/20 rule put into effect, because the passive 80% would essentially have no choice but to be drug along. The only thing stopping this is that it involves the 20% giving up some of their comfort -- THAT is the mechanism in our society that is used to enforce passive cooperation with a rather immoral system that reinforces our worst patterns while penalizing our better instincts.

Does any of this make sense? I'm kind of talking off the top of my head here, so perhaps I could clarify it after re-reading and a little time in reflection/editing.

[drfemoe]

41. IC . my brain hurts . lol .

This is big for me. This is something for me and the others I know who are worn out from the anger. And above all worn out from being nit-picked or emotionally manipulated from every side.

After re-thinking the principle, it should be clear that even at DU, this principle has meaning. I'm looking now for the 20% who want to think these things through.

I read threads sometimes . just glance down the subject line, and it is all whoosh* bashing and frivolity or anger or OUTRAGE (I've been there many times) or snarky remarks against the RW OR Liberals. Lock-step is apparent in certain contexts. And when someone insists that we agree with them that it does not exist, they are asking me to participate in "lock-step" thinking.

You've added much to my beginning musings. I don't know if it's exactly as you say. An additional possibility is that 20% are putting out 80% of the information that is absorbed into our group consciousness (in society). Those are the 20% that are manipulating everyone's reality. They don't have to be high level players, each and every one. It's the 20% of information that the general public is exposed to. The bulk of information goes unnoticed for various reasons.

There is much more here. I will visit this topic again. But, as I posted below . up all night . toothache . and now need to lay my body down. Thanks for your thoughts. So much clicks. If we think in ruts, we end up in graves. The power elite does not mind that at all. They will gladly hoe the row and point our noses and we go to plowing the trenches, from where we may never return.

Looking for you later .. maybe you'll have it all figured out by then!! :hi5:

[IrateCitizen]

58. Thanks for the pressure...

Looking for you later .. maybe you'll have it all figured out by then!!

Not bloody likely. I've figured out a lot over the last 4 years or so, but it pales in comparison to how much I still need to figure out.

I still think that you're dealing with too large of a number when you say that 20% is responsible for shaping opinion. That might have been true at one time, but with the advent of new technologies and the quickening pace of consolidation that has gone along with them, I would put that number exponentially lower now. And out of those who are actually INVOLVED in helping to shape opinion, a great majority of them are doing so passively, without even realizing what they are doing (i.e. TV News anchors and the like).

This is all a topic that deserves a much more substansive discussion. Hopefully we can flesh it out in greater detail in the future.

Sorry for making your brain hurt. ;-)

[nonconformist]

8. No, we're not wrong, which is why most of us feel so passionately

It's not just about having different philosophical views. It's about the FACTS.

The FACTS about the Iraq War - from the bogus reasons to go to war in the first place to the quagmire we find ourselves in today that we warned about.

The FACTS about the troubled economy. The FACTS about Bush's tax cuts.

The FACTS about the PATRIOT Act.

The FACTS about how Bush is the least available president in history - be it the disgustingly frequent vacations, or that he has had the fewest press conferences than any president since the advent of television (even though in the three short years he's been in office we have had the worst terrorist attack in the history of our country and started two wars), or even that all public appearances are before hand-picked and screened crowds.

Yes, ideas are always arguable. This just isn't about our feelings on something, this is about the FACTS. And WE ARE RIGHT.

[drfemoe]

9. We are making a BIG mistake

by making this about Bush*. The FACTS (problems) are systemic.
They are NOT flesh and blood.

[DarkPhenyx]

12. Thank you!

That is an excellent point, and one we lose far too often when we get into these discussions. We are "blinded" by our being "right" about Bush and it is causing us to miss important details and facts.

[Cerval]

35. I've been thinking about this very point...

...quite a bit.

Hatred should be the mark of the people we fight against. I am having a hard time not hating Republicans because they are so small-viewed, mean, afraid, and pathetic but, are they not humans as well? Are their failings a reason to want them to suffer?

What the RW has done and continues to do is appalling but, should we not be trying to change their points of view rather than attacking and alienating them.

I want the Republicants to return to the fold of humanity so that my nation, my values, my hopes and dreams may become more secure and closer to reality.

The only way this is going to happen is if we can distance ourselves from our emotions and find an inroad into the RW mentality. Insulting them isn't going to work on them any more than it works on us.

[drfemoe]

43. I'm glad to hear

you've been thinking along some of the same lines. I would like to hear more about what you've been thinking.

In many cases, we don't even need to change minds .. we simply need to realize that we really want the same thing - Liberty. Our inheritance.

Some will never return because it is not in their interest to do so. Actually if *YOU* are the one making the rules and collecting the prizes, what would *YOU* want to change?

So far, I'm seeing it as, we can't expect them to *feel* the same way we do. If there are sincere human beings who want to see the planet go up in a plume of smoke, then they MUST not be allowed to set the agenda for the rest of us who do not wish that outcome. But I believe there is only a tiny fringe who may want something of that kind. There ARE solutions. We can find them if we put away our hurt, fear, anger (I'm VERY familiar with all of them), for a little while, and consider an alternate approach. Be assured, it will NOT be the "majority" taking this new path. But a "majority" is not required to make changes. A dedicated 20% can produce 80% of what we need to set our affairs in order.

[IrateCitizen]

47. Are they a rival, or an enemy?

Your post reminded me of something I read recently in Daniel Ellsberg's Secrets. Ellsberg was describing one of the first antiwar gatherings he attended, well in advance of his publishing of the Pentagon Papers, at which he met a young Indian woman. This woman came from a sect of strict followers of Gandhi in India. She described to Ellsberg how, in her sect, they did not have a word for "enemy" -- to them, it was a foreign concept. The reason why was because they did not believe it possible to identify another human being as your "enemy". Sure, you may have differences with them and what not, but at the end of it all they are still your fellow human being -- and is it really possible to define another being with whom you ultimately have so much in common as your enemy?

I thought of this when I read your post, and I think of it now every time I see someone refer to Republicans as the "enemy". Sure, their policies are the source of great pain and hardship. Sure, they should be removed from power at the earliest possible opportunity and steps taken to make certain that their excesses not be repeated. But to define them as the "enemy" is to, in effect, dehumanize them. There's nothing good nor just about dehumanization. At the end of the day, more than some "enemy" needing to be defeated, they are more like all of us than any of us care to admit. They have families, friends and loved ones. Although they may be unenlightened and narrowminded in many respects, they do not deserve our hatred. That's the role of demagoguery, and if we've fallen into demagoguery, then we're as far from justice and humanity as they are.

[redqueen]

51. Kucinich has been saying this for a year

hope you have better luck than he did. :(

[DarkPhenyx]

10. I'm not talking about specific issues.

This is a general statement. Are you implying that it is impossible for us to be wrong?

However, on specific issues, are you sure we have it absolutely 100% right on those issue you mentioned? There is no room for us to be partially right and still have it wrong?

Remember, life is not black and white. never has been, never will be.

[nonconformist]

15. Uh, yes I am. Otherwise I wouldn't care. nt

[drfemoe]

18. Notice the orientation ..

we're not wrong, which is why most of us feel so passionately

otherwise I wouldn't care

Emotional language to justify "facts".

[DarkPhenyx]

19. Yeah, kinda noticed that.

It would be nice if we could divorce emotion from the discussion. Unfortunately it isn't easy. Some are better at it then others, and noone is great at it on every subject.

[nonconformist]

21. Amazing.

I would like to know what about my 'facts' post was based solely on emotion?

I in turn ask you - why ARE WE WRONG?

And if you don't feel anything about this, no passion, no sense of caring about what is happening to this country... well I'm at a loss for words.

[DarkPhenyx]

32. When I have a chance to I am going to answer your question at length.

At the moment I can't.

I have a great deal of passion about what is happening to this country. However emotion is an extremely bad thing to base your decisions on how to proceed about it. I would hazard a guess that emotion, and not logic, played a big part in the actions of those people abusing Iraqi prisoners. It also has a great deal of influance in the Right to Life crowds logic, or lack there of.

[nonconformist]

20. Are you saying that we're wrong?

I don't understand the argument here. I am more than happy to hear why you think that we're wrong. If you don't think we're wrong, what's the deal?

Emotional language isn't justifying shit here. The facts speak for themselves. I FEEL passionately about the wrongs that have been done. I would hope we ALL do, because as it's been said a million times - if you're not angry, then you're not paying attention. Not caring leads to apathy, which leads to acceptance.

[drfemoe]

29. Did you read post #16?

I'm WORN OUT from being ANGRY. My EMOTIONS are sapped!!!

The entire world is in a fit of emotional crisis.
How's that working for you?

I'm not going to get into an emotional discussion right now. I've actually HAD IT with the all the emotional manipulations from every quarter.

If you have any response to what I wrote in #16, I would be happy to hear it. I'll reply to emotional pleas at some other time.

[nonconformist]

31. I'm not arguing on the basis of emotion

My first post to this topic was outlining the exact opposite, actually. That some things are arguable - perhaps no clear right and wrong - but we have facts on our side.

I'm not emotionally manipulating anyone, nor pleading to anyone based on emotions. You're twisting around what I was saying.

As for how it's working out for me - it's hard sometimes. But my ANGER (uh oh, there goes a feeling) has made me more aware, made me seek out more information, and made me more of an activist. I can't help but think that is a good thing.

I'm pissed off about how my government has lied to me. If that makes me some emotional wuss, then so be it. But I know the facts, I can debate the facts. And yes, I believe we are absolutely correct based on the facts. Otherwise, why bother?

[drfemoe]

39. I believe we need to broaden the facts ..

I really didn't mean to attack anyone's feelings or anyone for HAVING feelings about the state of current affairs. Or to twist anything.

Something started clicking for me yesterday .. something beyond emotion, because, as I said, I am worn out. I know lots of others in the same shape.

There are many, many *facts* we need to consider. Just fixing Ira* is NOT going to settle the crises facing us right now. Everything you mention IS important. But does it go far enough? Do we just want to change the hand that signs the checks as $$Billions more flows from our hands into the industrial-military complex? Or do we need to do some deep thinking about exactly where we are going? I think the latter.

I've been up all night with a toothache, and I'm going to have to bow out for now. I do plan to express more about what these new idea connections mean. When I can think more clearly.

Let me just leave you now with another piece that has entered the thought process so far >>
The Sorrows of Empire : Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic {The American Empire Project}
by Chalmers Johnson
http://tinyurl.com/yvvmx << link to amazon.com

My intention is not to condemn those who are not thinking along the same lines I am right now. We started off talking about "lock-step", and are we different . . . OF COURSE WE ARE!! We DO all have our own brains in our heads. But if *we* demand that everyone agree that *we* must say, "no we are not lock-step, we have facts, we have feelings to back this up, and you must agree with me" .. then what has just been proven?

But there is something *here* for *me*. Something I need to know or learn. And I never give up trying to figure something out, until I've arrived at a cohesive thought .. even if that thought is > it is unknowable at this time. Fortunately, there is a group here at DU (maybe 20%) who are interested in talking about these ideas. We need each other.

I am all too aware that what I think about things doesn't matter all that much. What I'm going through now is for me and for all of us who are emotionally spent. We deserve to know what we are working for. What we are CARING for. And my experience with the rm last night just opened my eyes to how futile it is to expect the same *feelings* from people who just don't *feel* the same way we do. BUT we can still find common ground .. the survival of our nation and our world depend upon it.

[Bandit]

22. Sounds like you don't really believe in the tenets of Liberalism

Is capital more important to you than people? That is pretty much what it is all about.

[scrotim]

28. as a newbie, I request that you direct me to some sources

so I can review the "tenets of liberalism" and see if I even belong here.

[DarkPhenyx]

33. And what tenant of Liberalism am I in violation of?

Pleas show me where these tenants are written down too. I'd love to read them.

[No Mandate Here.]

2. I thought that, too, and then studied the right hand panel...

... a lot more, and came to the conclusion that the fellow in blue had crossed to the other side of the tent. See the guy in the hat, etc.

What do you think? Is he on the other side of the tent?

[DarkPhenyx]

3. Hummmmmmmm, red band on hat.

I thihk you are right. Thank you for pointing that out. :)

I officially retract my observation, but not the sentiment that went behind it.

[drfemoe]

7. It's a high school reuinion

the "reds" are on one side (the "Bushies") .. the "blues" on the other .. the guy wants to go talk to his old classmates who are on the "red" side .. the "blues" shout him down ..

[Nlighten1]

14. Shame isn't it?

Although...I don't think this cartoon is particularly fair. Anyone who has been paying attention to politics for a while knows that the insane Bush supporters WILL NOT LISTEN to reason. They have their talking points and they stick to them like a snapping turtle.

[IrateCitizen]

17. It's absolutely true -- I'll even cite a side example vis a vis Iraq

The overwhelming majority of us here opposed the invasion of Iraq. But in the follow-on of the invasion, what I hear from many of my fellow leftists is an allusion that it is actually a GOOD thing when the policies fail over there.

The other day, I was listening to WBAI (Pacifica Radio), and the host said something to the effect of, "I'm optimistic that the whole thing will be proven to have been based on lies."

Excuse me? Optimistic? There's nothing "optimistic" about this. The caller to whom the host was speaking questioned her on this, and she said something along the lines of, "Well, I'm not really optimistic, I just think that it will all be proven out."

But it's really more accurate to say that she WAS optimistic about all of this. This is something that we often do that is completely self-defeating -- we seem to actually REJOICE, in a manner of speaking, when RW policies go wrong. We can all agree that many of those policies are completely misguided, but that is no cause for any kind of celebration when they go wrong -- especially when they have life or death consequences.

If the invasion of Iraq would have actually worked in setting up some kind of true democracy there, I can honestly say that my first reaction would actually have been regret. The more I have thought about this, I have realized just how wrong this attitude is. Although we all see the chaos that has been unleashed in Iraq, we need to keep sight of our humility in the process. The goal isn't to be proven "right", as we often mistakenly assume it to be. The goal is to make the world a better place. If listening and thinking about some of the things conservatives have to say can help accomplish that goal, then we need to all put our egos aside and be willing to do that.

[Beam Me Up]

25. Significant change can not come through further polorization

How to overcome the differences--how to see though to something deeper that unites us--that, to me, is the essential question.

It looks to me like we are very rapidly approaching global crisis on a variety of fronts (economic, political, ecological, spiritual). And by 'crisis' I mean 'matters of life and death' for a great many people, including people right here in the good ol' USA. That isn't obvious yet to everyone, but if I'm right, it will become increasingly so in the next 5 to 10 years.

I once heard a very wise man say, "Extraordinary times call for extraordinary people." What IN US can respond to a call for global unity and a rejection of tyranny? It is coming down to this, IMO, and far more quickly than most of us realize.

[drfemoe]

42. There is some percentage

who get exactly where you're coming from, and agree.

From a practical standpoint, we need to be thinking forward to *what do we do* IF .... certain conditions arise. We can't just depend on our feelings to carry us through.

I concur with your closing paragraph. Exactly.

[KoKo]

26. I disagree, though, with the assumption that we should be "open minded"

about Bush & Co's Invasion of Iraq. For those of us who have had long experience with excuses of "bringing Democracy" to countries who haven't asked us to be there, we have seen the evil fruits of this take our money and our young peoples lives, time and time again.

Those of us who saw that Iraq would be a disaster based our opinion on our own experience and much reading of both sides of the issue. Living through bad foreign policy, in the end is the best teacher.

There is no one here who remembers Vietnam and had fathers or relatives who fought in Korea who would be "gloating" about what is going on in Iraq. But we know that invasion was wrong and we want this time for America to really see the result of giving a President unlimited authority to "make war."

That anyone could say that our experience in Viet Nam was a successful policy but that the military wasn't "tough enough" and that's why we "lost" (the Conservative Republican viewpoint) is unbelievable to me, because we still live with that war and it has corrupted our ability in this country to have any meaningful dialog about what our foreign policy should be. Viet Nam is repeated in Iraq and the anger of the Left who knew it was a Redux of another failed policy resusitated from what might have been death by Cold Warriors who won't give up, just will not go away.

I think this post and thread is insulting to many of us here. I feel sad that some of you think that we don't listen to both sides and read both sides of an issue.

It's really depressing enough with what's going on than to think that some folks think the "left" is as "lock step" as the Right. :-(

[IrateCitizen]

30. Spare my your indignation, KoKo1

You obviously missed the overall point of my post. Iraq was not the subject, but rather an example. Are you telling me that you would concur with the "optimism" of the radio host of whom I spoke?

I saw what has happened coming a mile away as well. I knew in my gut that the neocons were acting out of fully selfish reasons. However, if you'll indulge me for a moment, consider an alternative course of events. What if we would have invaded, overthrown Saddam, and then basically ceded to the wishes of the vast majority of Iraqis when they have said, "We didn't like Saddam, we're glad he's gone -- now leave."?

What if the US would have simply militarily pulled out of Iraq, financed reconstruction efforts BY IRAQIS, and allowed them to form a government of their own choosing. As impossible as such a scenario would be in the current context, just consider for a moment what your reaction would have been had it unfolded that way.

I'm not old enough to have lived through Vietnam, but I've read enough about it to know how completely fucked it was from the get-go. I also realize the wrongness of what we tried to do there. I see the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam -- particularly the web of lies in both instances that were used to suck us into a cause in which we are clearly not the "good guys".

However, if you can honestly say that you are able to see all sides of an issue and listen to opposing points of view, then you're probably in the minority here. Just take a moment and look around once in a while, it's amazing how much the sentiment often takes the tone of cheering for a favorite football team rather than debating the issues that genuinely affect people's lives -- sometimes to the point of life and death.

[KoKo]

34. Here's where I think you focused wrongly by making a leap about using

the word "optimistic" and then tying that into your bigger argument that some are looking on this as "our team is winning because Bush is messing up with this or that policy."

The quote you gave about the Pacifica host:

The overwhelming majority of us here opposed the invasion of Iraq. But in the follow-on of the invasion, what I hear from many of my fellow leftists is an allusion that it is actually a GOOD thing when the policies fail over there.

The other day, I was listening to WBAI (Pacifica Radio), and the host said something to the effect of, "I'm optimistic that the whole thing will be proven to have been based on lies."

My interpretation of what the host was saying was that she (like myself and many others) knew from our extensive reading, and Joe Wilson and Robert Byrd and many other instances that Bush based going to war on "lies." This host says, "based on lies." The host then says I'm optimistic that the "whole thing will be proven to be based on lies."

The host is NOT saying that he/she is optimistic about the War going badly. But that the fact that we went into this war should be known to the American people and is finally feeling "optimistic" that the truth is coming out.

Now different people hear or read a statement and can have different interpretations of it. I would agree with the host and say: "Yes," I am optimistic that the American people are starting to wake up to the Bush lies and cover up about it." I am hopeful that this is what's happening.


As to Iraq: Since I was against this hoked up Invasion to avenge Poppy, protect Oil, make Israel safe for the RW Christian Evangelists aligned with the Project for New American Century (take your pick of the wrong reasons, any one of them) ...since I was against this Invasion and found it immoral, illegal (we are members of UN), I can find no way to support our staying there whether the Iraqi's were still throwing flowers and us and all was going well, or whether we have the total disaster that has become the reality of our Invasion and Occupation. In either case we should be out of there. If we had invaded allowed them to have an election and then got the hell out, UNLESS they asked to stay (THEIR DECISION)it couldn't have been much worse than what's going on now. It's their country. If they have a civil war it's their's to have. Bush removed Saddam. So, let the Iraqi's have their country back without Saddam. If it desended into chaos...well it's chaos now. But, we have no way of knowing that they might not have been able to get themselves together without our presence and we didn't offer them a chance because we were either afraid of chaos, or we always intended to occupy them to have that foothold in the ME. Take your pick of the choices.

I was sad to see that some here thought that those of us who were violently opposed to the Invasion and want us out of Iraq are somehow
cheering over Bush's failures. I don't see this as a game.

But, I agree that "DU Huge" doesn't have time for discussions anymore.
So, it becomes like "Crossfire or Hard Ball" around here with folks cheering or razzing each other. Little discussion, just make your point and do a hit and run. But, it doesn't help to characterize all of us as being that way. And, that's what my impression was from some of the posts here. Peace! :-)'s

[IrateCitizen]

45. I don't think that you and I are far apart at all, KoKo

I don't really consider myself a part of "DU Huge" -- even if I post here more than I really should. ;-) It seems that we have gone from discussion to adopting a "team" mentality. So much so that I catch myself engaging in that kind of behavior from time to time.

WRT the Pacifica host I mentioned, I can say that I'm a pretty regular listener to WBAI. And while I certainly appreciate the viewpoints they offer -- many of which are not heard ANYWHERE else -- they also have their fair share of ideologues on the left. I can say without a doubt that I would not want those ideologues formulating policy any more than I want the current neocon band that squats in the WH. If you would have heard the tone of the exchange, I think you might see it in not quite as positive of a light. While I am certainly happy to see anything that brings the light of truth to the Bushistas' misdeeds and lies, I do not revel in their failures, for their failures have implications. That was the differentiation I was trying to make, and I apparently made it quite poorly.

[RandomKoolzip]

24. I don't think such serious issues are being raised by this strip....

It's just another example of why Liberalism trumps Conservativism: We have the ability to poke fun at ourselves, they don't. You think Mallard Fillmore would ever come out with a strip like this?

Plus, even if we DO think in lockstep, let's remember that being willfully sloppy, argumentative, and disorganized never won an election.

[bigtree]

36. One of us?

Which one of us? This is a diverse board.

[fishnfla]

38. ironic isnt it?

the poster totally misunderstood the cartoon and misrepresents the author and his message.

Yet we are not "brave enough to listen", even though he was wrong from the start.

Kind of a microcosm of political discourse in general, IMO.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

44. Notice the red band?

On the guy's hat in the last panel.

Group think is a dangerous thing, but I think the left is far less likely to engage in it than the right. Nader never would have gotten the votes he did in 2000 otherwise. Also, DU is a perfect example of just how diverse our beliefs run.

[deutsey]

46. Crowd in unison: Yes, we are all individuals.

Lone man: I'm not.

--Monty Python's Life of Brian

[Oddman]

50. I, for one, am happy as hell

that we are so united against the toxic avenger bush.

We NEED to be even more united against this pathetic excuse for a "president".



“I’m sorry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .that we got caught!”

[Generator]

53. Exactly (Bush is not fit to lead his way out of a paper bag)

You can't reason with those that have blindfolds on. See no hear no evil and then when they do, lie and ignore it more! It's not a mystery, it's a fact. Bunnypants doesn't know what the hell he's doing.

Reason my ass. Their only reason for supporting this man is willful ignorance and or pure SPITE. Filled with fear and spite, they do not care about anyone but themselves. Those prisoners had it comming, didn't they, I mean they are all Al-Queda responsible for 9/11.

REASON my ASS.

[robbedvoter]

56. OK, dear. This mob deputizes you to reason with the Bushies one on one

May God be with you. report in 7 days 9not earlier, please)

[DarkPhenyx]

61. I'm more worried about my own people thank you.

You can take the honor of reasoning with the Bush supporters. :)

[mouse7]

57. As a veteran organizer, I know Democrats agree on NOTHING.

People here have short memories. Remember the Primaries 2004 forum?

[rucky]

59. That's not true.

:evilgrin: