Naomi Wolf's "The End of America"--noble goal, lousy argument

[jpgray]

Her goal is noble--to point out how dangerous the encroachments on personal liberties and the consolidation of authoritarian power can be, and to point out instances where the US is doing those things. That's all great. Her argument that we are inevitably trending towards a de facto fascist state comparable to some of the worst in recent history is, however, totally bogus. And it runs into the same problem I love to blast people (including myself!) for over and over again. I describe my issues with inattentive or hasty historical comparison at length here.

Why are her comparisons bogus? Because to make comparisons between two very different situations, she has to ignore such major differences that her comparisons lose meaning, and lose effectiveness as predictors of actual fascism. When you ignore the totality in favor of a few pleasing similarities for the purpose of making a point, you can forget that the two compared entities have crucial, epochal differences. For example, Guantanamo is a gulag by definition, but does it have the -magnitude- of prisons in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? Is it used to the same extent and for the same reasons? Nope. Therefore comparing the two deprives each of its context, and the comparison loses meaning and approaches invalidity.

An easy way to point out the flaws of these facile comparisons is that America under FDR or Lincoln each qualify as having the same indicators she describes as "the End of America."

Invoke a terrifying internal and external threat? Check. Prison camps for political dissidents or undesirables that neglect human rights? Check. "Thug class" or vigilante nationalistic gangs attacking these undesirables? You bet. Internal surveillance? Sure (though almost every modern industrialized nation has a form of this--again it comes down to method and magnitude). Media control? Arbitrary detention? Unconstitutional crushing of dissent? Suspension of the rule of law? All factors in those two past Americas.

Did it lead to fascism in either case? Nope. -That's- why you have to pay attention to specifics, and identify major contextual and individual differences. Now, as to whether Wolf's book is a bad thing, I'd say in general its aim is very noble. These -are- dangerous attacks on civil liberties, and an encroaching authoritarian state is something to argue against whenever possible. However, I think she is using some very disingenuous arguments to promote that idea. That's fine to do as an activist, as rhetorical marketing tricks are naturally part of the trade, but let's not pretend such is a wholly honest and empirically valid argument. Because it's not.

[Dark]

1. Hold on, let me get the popcorn.

Btw, I agree with you. The "BUSH = HITLER" shit really grinds my gears.

[Swamp Rat]

2. HAHA!

:D

[Dark]

3. This thread is going to get pretty interesting.

And that pic made me lol.

On edit:

Hey, swamprat, I found a pic you might be interested in having some fun with:



granted, it's already pretty funny (Bible = Disaster)

But I'm sure you can make it better.

;-)

[Swamp Rat]

7. Whoa!

I don't know if I should... CAN do anything to it. :D

[Dark]

10. Look on it as a challenge.

;-)

[Swamp Rat]

12. I need a break after just finishing this one:

:D

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. WOW that's incredible

[Swamp Rat]

15. Thread hijack!

Sorry jpgray! I'm jus' havin' fun! :D

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Well I don't mind seeing your artwork

:-)

[jpgray]

18. No worries--I don't see any velvet ropes around this thread

[Dark]

36. If only he'd run for prez.

sigh.

[Richard Steele]

4. Heh.

:popcorn:

[Swamp Rat]

8. COOL!

I'm stealing that one!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. ah, how cute!!!!!! GOOD WORK

[Dark]

11. I think it was actually Snowe who played medical officer with Jeff gannon

Still, that's funny.

[Swamp Rat]

14. Tony Snow?

He was only one of Jeff's clients. :D

[Dark]

22. I can never remember which one is Snow and which one is Snowe.

Is there a cheat sheet somewhere? It's so hard to keep up, with all these conservative scandals. . .

[Swamp Rat]

26. Olympia Snowe?

http://snowe.senate.gov/bio.htm

So many GOP scandals and yet so little time. :D

[Dark]

37. Wow.

just wow.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Coming from somebody who hasn't read the book

I am ammused...

Let me get a quote from another book that I suspect you haven't read either

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

[jpgray]

6. Would you say America under FDR or Lincoln was "the end of America?"

Each case meets her qualifications.

[tom_paine]

21. Did Lincoln or FDR start a War Without End?

I was just wondering, because in each of the cases you cite, the wars (aka the social conditions that allowed) during their Presidencies each had a defined set of victory conditions, in which it was presumed, correctly, that the constitutional excesses would largely end when victory was acheieved.

Although I feel compelled to add that Lincoln's measures were even justified by their Constitutionality, as in the mention of Habeus Corpus being suspended "in the event of rebellion or invasion".

The point being, and the orony being, someone who complains of faulty historical analogies using a historical analogy which is faulty at it's very foundation, the base premise of Bushler's War Without End as compared to wars with defined victory conditions, not against a nation or people but against a feeling: "terror" and a war which has no end.

Oh, and I aslo suspect you have never read Mayer, Jaspers, Arendt, or even the book "The Authoritarians" which you can link to in my sigline to further understand why the Bushies and their followers are of the same mental cast as Hitler and his followers, in spite of their cosmetic differences, and that the Bushies are far less violent than the Nazis.

Well, you probably shouldn't read them. Watch CNN instead. More mentally tranquil that way.

[jpgray]

24. But you'll note that isn't one of Wolf's steps. My point is FDR and Lincoln fit her description

[tom_paine]

45. Ah, but my point was your use of a faulty historical analogy

to bolster your opinion that faulty historical analogies suck.

Or are you saying that FDR/Lincoln's wars with definable victory conditions are equivalent to Bushler's Orwellian and Endless War Against Eurasia?

You cannot compare them, for that is one big honking MAJOR difference that renders your historical analogy, well...faulty. Very faulty.

[doublethink]

63. She addresses that issue in Part Two ......

of the introduction to The End of America ..... here are a few snips .....

During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, effectively declaring martial law in several states: Close to 38,000 Americans were imprisoned by military authorities during the war -- many for simply expressing their views. But when the war ended in 1865, the Supreme Court ruled that it had been unconstitutional for military tribunals to try civilians. -snip-

During World War II, the Justice Department rounded up 110,000 innocent Japanese-Americans and imprisoned them in camps. When the war was over, these innocent Americans were released as well. -snip-

I am describing the movement of "the pendulum" -- as in the American cliché, "The pendulum always swings back." We are so familiar with, and so reliant upon, the pendulum. That is why you are so sure that "America is different." But the pendulum's working depends on unrestricted motion. In America, up until now, the basic checks and balances established by the Founders have functioned so well that the pendulum has always managed to swing back. Its very success has made us lazy. We trust it too much, without looking at what a pendulum requires in order to function: the stable framework that allows movement; space in which to move; that is, liberty.

The pendulum cannot work now as it has before. There are now two major differences between these past examples of the pendulum's motion and the situation we face today.

First, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda and writer Joe Conason have both noted, previous wars and emergencies have had endpoints. But President Bush has defined the current conflict with global terrorism as being open-ended. This is a permanent alteration of the constitutional landscape.

The other difference between these examples and today is that when prior dark times unfolded in America, we forbade torture, and the rule of law was intact. Legal torture, as you will see, acting in concert with the erosion of the rule of law, changes what is possible. -snip-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/read-part-two-of-the-intr_b_64103.html

hope this helps. Peace.

[greyshade]

17. Heard her on NPR, haven't read the book yet...

...but her arguments have weight. No, they are certainly not perfect, and some analogies are stretched.

That said, just because there have been totalitarian elements at work in America before doesn't invalidate her warning. Being too alarmist is bad; being a little paranoid can save lives.

If I may hazard a timely comparison: global climate change. That's how I feel about the threat that the current crop of authoritarians pose to our nation.

Is the world going to end tomorrow?

Probably not.

Is there enough evidence to be really concerned?

Yes.

Is acting sooner better than acting later?

Absolutely.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Nah you, me and her are alarmists

and this quote applies

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

[jpgray]

27. Alarm is good! But dishonest comparisons will encourage people to dismiss such warnings.

Which I assume is not something you want.

[jpgray]

20. That's why I think her goal is noble. Erring on the side of caution is a good idea

However I think her argument would be better made if it didn't emply hasty or invalid historical comparisons. Because those provide an easy basis for people to dismiss her warning entirely.

[Swamp Rat]

23. Good point, but

on the other hand, her "hasty or invalid historical comparisons" may scare folks in a way that make them more aware of our current situation, or at least want to learn more. Somebody just might listen to Cassandra.

If I were sitting and talking with Arthur Schlesinger, for example, I would be careful about my arguments, but I nevertheless would broach the topic of comparative analysis regarding totalitarian states.

[jpgray]

25. That's the dilemma of activism--what level of shock value hurts the message rather than promotes it?

PETA for example has a lot of detractors these days who otherwise would be their natural allies. Their choice to do a billboard excoriating Gore (instead of, say, energy baron hunter Cheney) seems an odd one, for example.

[Swamp Rat]

31. I say leave the 'shock and awe' to nuts like me.

:D



No argument from me about PETA. I find it amazing that a group with resources would waste it going after their allies, or folks who are not a dire threat to humanity.

[WillyT]

30. Oh Hell Man... History And Patterned Behavior Is All We Have To Go On !!!

The whole point of NOT becoming Nazi Germany, or Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, or even Kosovo or Myanmar\Burma... is to nip it in the bud.

To not ever let it come to a state where military force is even considered.

[jpgray]

34. But are these good predictors of fascism? I just pointed out two cases where they weren't

If your comparisons get too simplistic and ignore too many differences, they start to lose their meaning and value.

[WillyT]

40. So... Please Describe What YOU'D Have Too See, To Nip Fascism In The Bud ???

:shrug:

[jpgray]

41. The point is, we don't have have to assume these behaviors always lead to fascism to denounce them

And if you argue that these behaviors always lead to fascism when they demonstrably do not, people will dismiss your argument that they must be stopped. One can make the argument that all these encroachments on liberty and the entrenchment of authoritarian power are very evil things, -without- comparing them to evil on a totally different scale and in a completely different context. And one should, because that argument will be harder to dismiss.

[WillyT]

43. That's A Nice Essay, What Do YOU Have To See Before You Sound The Alarm For Family And Friends ???

C'mon... it's your family and friends... what would you have too witness to warn them to protect themselves?

Just curious.

:shrug:

[tom_paine]

49. Some personal impact on his personal life, of course.

perhaps a neighbor taken away for questioning or a friend tasered to death "mistakenly" for daring to disobey.

I feel comfortable in making this assumption because so little has changed in the deep corer nature of humanity in the last 500 years (we did finally get rid of slavery, after a vigorous and lengthy debate about it's benefots, first, of course...we are such wise and deliberative primates).

As scientifically shown in the sigline link below, and blostered by decades of research and hard data, the mentality of Bushie Leaders and Nazi Leaders are deeply related. The similarities, mentally, of Bushie followers and Nazi followers are deep, as well.

Don't believe me? Clcik on the link below to be enlightened.

In any case (and of course I may be wrong), Good Germans and German Social Democrats are the same, too.

Therefore I assume that only a personal experience with the New Totalitarianism will wake this person and millions like him up.

Unfortunately, the tyrants, thanks to advances in psychology, KNOW this, and also now know to the tenth decimal place what Hitler and Goebbels and Bernays only knew intuitively.

Tyrants must fool enough people into inaction and navel-gazing for as long as possible to secure it's gains in authoritarian power.

And people desperately DESPERATELY want to be fooled, WANT to have a reason to ignore inconvenmient truths.

They want to believe that totalitarianism comes in one easily recognizable form, and that they are so smart they could never fasil to recognize it.

Of course, as Karl Jaspers said, being convinced it can't happen here makes the likelihood of it happeneing that much more probable.

[cali]

58. That's simply mischaracterization

and it's deliberate. His language was clear. You can fight against the things you think lead invariably to a police state/fascism, and he can fight against them, because they're worthy of fighting against even if he doesn't believe that they lead invariably to a police state/fascism. Why does he have to believe the latter if he's fighting against those things?

[EstimatedProphet]

56. His point is that there's nothing wrong with sounding the alarm

so long as it's the RIGHT alarm. Saying that we're losing our civil liberties is accurate. Saying that we will be Nazi Germany is only going to make people point at you and laugh.

[cali]

57. That's it. Right there.

That's it in a nutshell. Thanks for articulating that. It bears repeating over and over again.

"We don't have to assume these behaviors always lead to fascism to denounce them".

They are worthy of fighting against, and denunciation in their own right.

Thanks, jp.

[tom_paine]

46. My God, I am choking on irony. Literally CHOKING on it!

Can't breathe...

Did you really say this:

If your comparisons get too simplistic and ignore too many differences, they start to lose their meaning and value.

I happen to agree with your point wholheartedly. Why, that would be like comparing the temproary measures of FDR and Lincoln with a measures taken in a war that has no end no definable set of victory conditions.

:rofl:

Thanks. This has been a most amusing thead. You have a delightful sense of the absurd.

"Dying is easy. Comedy is hard."
--Ed Wynn

[jpgray]

62. You just proved my point--when you allow facile comparison, you can get absurd results.

And you just pointed out an extremely important contextual difference. Note that Wolf's plan does not account for all these contextual differences.

[Jim Sagle]

28. Thank you for your unconcern.

[jpgray]

38. To me, this argument needs to be made as well as possible. Because it's important

And the way she makes it completely undermines the conclusion, and allows people to dismiss it out of hand. That's bad.

[leftofthedial]

29. comparable does not equal identical

so arguing against a thesis that two things are comparable by hashing voluminous ways in which they are not identical is nonsensical.

Italy was profoundly different from Germany in the 30's, yet both were certainly fascist, que no?

Hitler and Stalin were profoundly different, but both were ruthless totalitarian dictators, que no?

America can be fascist without king george being indistinguishable from Hitler. Gitmo can be a fascist concentration camp without having cyanide showers and ovens. It is not "careless" or "hasty" history to find similarities between Nazi Germany (or Stalin's USSR, or Mussolini's Italy) and the raygun-bush-bush slide of America into fascism. Indeed it is careless and inattentive history NOT to notice the similarities.

[jpgray]

32. But her standards are -so- generalized, states that did -not- turn fascist qualify by her "steps"

I gave two examples above. So if her steps aren't good predictors of fascism, what's the point? Why make that disingenuous argument? Why not make an -honest- argument about the dangers we are facing?

Also it's not a question of there being a few niggling differences, but major, astronomical, crucial differences exist. Why take out all the specifics and the context that make each situation what it is for the point of dishonestly comparing them? It disarms the argument and leaves it open to ridicule, and her conclusion (that we live in dangerous times) is fucking important! Why undermine that argument with lazy historical analysis?

[leftofthedial]

51. so, it is your contention that what is happening in America, Iraq, Gitmo, etc.

is not fascism? --not proto-fascism? --and it is "sloppy" to even consider that it might be fascism until the US officially adopts the swastika as our national symbol and starts gassing millions of people?

I truly don't understand your problem with this. Just as identicalness is not necessary for an apt comparison, so the predictive failure of the existence of a separate similar condition does not disqualify the condition. Not all high fevers are malaria. High fever nevertheless remains a symptom of malaria.

Lots of tinpot militaristic dictators failed to conquer Europe and murder 6 million Jews. That is not evidence that any particular current tinpot is not a fascist.

[cuke]

52. Besides, torture isn't wrong because it leads to fascism

Torture is wrong because torture is wrong. The same goes for illegal detention, surveillance, etc.

[bridgit]

33. whatever you say...

you da'man

[Dark]

35. Since I kind of thread-jacked, I'll post something a little more substantitive.

Could someone PLEASE explain to me how, if we're living in a fascist or proto-fascist state, why the opposition party won the 2006 elections.

BTW, they've also rejected more proposals from the other party than any other in the last 50 years or so. So don't say "they're not really an opposition party."

[Swamp Rat]

39. It's a shell game.

We vote them into power in order to end the Iraq war, but then they turn around and say to Bushler, "it's sorta ok to go to Iran, if you say that we really really need to."

Neat trick, huh?

[Dark]

47. There's only one way to quickly end the war.

Defund it.

That would be political suicide, and it'd land us with another 4-8 years of Republican control, which would doom this country.

As for Iran, they can't do much other than airstrikes. A land invasion, technically speaking, would be impossible at this point. And even then, this admin would be hard pressed to justify it, with a 28 percent approval rating.

But, I'll say this: Both the Democrats and the Republicans are fucking you. But, at least the democrats give you a reach-a-round.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. One of the characteristics of authoritarian states are fixed elections

we did...

But the remedy to that one is overwhelming presence at the polls where an election cannot be flipped

Some analysts in the open election movement contend that we didn't take all the seats we should

And that is for you to actually buy or not

But whole scale disenfranchisement has been going on since oh 2000 at least

And it includes things like caging lists and computer code

I hope that answer makes any sense to you

[Dark]

48. I don't deny that the repubs fucked with the elections.

But to hand power to a group that rejects most of your proposals is not a exactly winning strategy.

But, then again, neither is Iraq.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. I gave you an explanation

and one that may actually prove to be the correct one when all is said and done if there is a history written

The voting patters for the mid term elections were much heavier than usual...

As is... have any of the core policies changed?

No

And it has nothing to do with they are the same... though wiht some Democrats, reality is at one time they would have been moderate republicans, but that age is gone, long gone

It is more like... the Congress has been neutered... another common patter across history

In some ways the time for negotiations is over

But our heroic leaders still play with the rules of the 1970s... when they are playing with thugs

[cali]

59. It would be nice if you actually

provided links when you make claims.

[Luminous Animal]

42. She clearly states that she is not comaparing Bush to Hitler

And she did not make a comparison between Guantanamo and concentration camps. In fact, sh states that:

ou do not need Nazi-style death camps to subdue a nation, only a network of indefinite detention and torture camps set up as a backdrop - has been learned well by many dictators.

[cuke]

53. I suspect that jpgray may be underestimating Wolf's argument

based on a poster who has mischaracterized Wolf's argument in order to bolster their own argument that Gitmo is the equivalent of a Nazi death camp.

I heard Wolf speak breifly and she said that this is a fascist govt, but she said absolutely nothing about Nazis or death camps. I believe her opinion is based more on corporate influence, media control, etc than anything particularly nazi-ish

[Luminous Animal]

54. You are probably right...

I just read the book and I'm rereading some parts and the OP is misrepresenting Ms Wolf's argument. She's absolutely clear that a fascist or totalitarian society does not require wholesale imprisonment or mass murder.

[cali]

60. i think you may be right

I've read a couple of detailed reviews of the book.

[Gonzo Gardener]

55. ...an encroaching authoritarian state

We should be discussing the degree, no... as you say, "magnitude" to which the US has become an authoritarian state and how we counter further disintegration not debating how accurately Naomi Klein can predict the future.



Any serious debate should focus on how far we have gone down the road toward totalitarianism as a means to ascertain if we still have the ability to choose which direction we would like to go. We must recognize where we stand before we begin taking steps to repair the damage done. Or, as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated, "to retrace our steps to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, enumerated what he called 'the essential principles of our government, which ought to shape its Administration.'

He then stated:

"These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civil instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety."

[greyshade]

61. Free and fair elections are going to by my yardstick.

I will believe that we are not on the road to totalitarianism when:

1. The next Presidential election is conducted on time *whether or not* there are any terrorist threats/attacks.

2. Large numbers of the voting populace are not systematically disenfranchised.

3. The election returns are verifiable.

I think my fundamental concern is whether the basic machinery of democracy is still working or will be allowed to work. Not trying to be paranoid, but there are those who currently hold power who will not give it up easily.

[Cleita]

64. I think you need to read it again.

She's on target and her information is up to date and current. Her comparisons with other regimes in the past are valid. We are already in a state of fascism. There is no leading up to it or have you been going through the last six years with blinders on?