Letters to the Editor
-
In a nutshell
The terms "left" and "right" do not mean what they meant even ten years ago, though they still have meaning -- at least for now, until this radical authortarian right-wing movement is banished to the dustbin, those terms have come to designate whether one is loyal to, or opposes, that movement.
Wow, I sure am glad Greenwald is here.
-
OK, the truth is out
They're coming right out and saying it, and the big question now is whether or not we, as a nation, have become so soft and fearful that we give away our freedoms to the Daddy State.
A word of appreciation to Glenn for reading Brooks so that I don't have to.
-
right on Glenn
I glanced at the NYT op-ed this morning. I saw the "Security leads to Freedom": header and cringed.
It is a very dangerous idea (or "meme") that has led to much destruciton. I think the fact that bobo is pushing it pretty much eliminates any standing he had as a serious thinker. (if he had any.) this is base propaganda.
I have a 10 month old son. My wife and I occasionally talk about his future and we a little scared.
-
Nothing can change the shape of things...
War Is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.
-
In a Further Nutshell
As Bill Hicks, who didn't live to see the authoritarian after-effects of 9/11, said of the conservative philosophy back in the day: "You are free... to do what we tell you!"
-
Black is white
This just fits with everything they have done.
Down is up, small is big.
We need to make sure they (the right wing) cannot run from this. I can see the campaign slogans now.
JT
-
"Security leads to freedom"
Astounding that Brooks can make such an Orwellian statement as if it's the most normal & acceptable thing in the world. I knew his ilk were arrogant & blatant; I just couldn't admit to myself HOW arrogant & blatant, I guess. But it's impossible to deny, even for the most blinkered. Really, Brooks is far worse than a raving gasbag like Limbaugh or Falwell, because he dresses himself up in faux respectability & plays at being oh so reasonable & thoughtful. When a slightly closer listen reveals someone from the Bizarro World.
-
It has a name - Nationalism
We're about 80 years behind the curve on this one, but Bushism is classic nationalism. It bears all of the hallmarks of an extremely powerful central state that uses propaganda, ethnocentrism and fear-mongering to enhance its power. These tools are easy to get people to support, and Bush's people have been very good at using them.
In return, we've gotten nationalistic policies: degradation of liberty in exchange for "protection", demonization of others (France, "liberals","Islamo-fascists", immigrants), militarism and expansionism. But like all nationalism expansionist movements, it hit a snag.
Fortunately for our democracy, it hit a snag early and lost the support of the masses. I'm not suggesting that it's good what has happened in Iraq, I'm just suggesting that a nationalistic power will always go too far and end up the weaker for it. Better to have our nationalism end before it destroys the very fabric of our society than later when the results could have been catastrophic. The outcome in Iraq is not going to be good for us, but nationalism has never been good for any society in which it has sprung up. We're lucky that our system is set up to survive this bout with nationalism. Bush will soon be gone, and the nationalistic overtones to the McCain and Giuliani campaigns aren't taking off amongst the general population. Even if one of them becomes the next president, they will only be able to do so moving away from nationalism, and likely, into more of a classic conservative/libertarian type leadership.
-
'Positive Liberty' at Heart of Radical Definitions of Liberty
Great catch on this one. If I can amplify on this point (I'm a specialist in 19th century Russian radicalism), let me say that the definition of liberty as a state of fulfillment, rather than as a lack of constraint--'positive' rather than 'negative' liberty--lies at the heart of radical movements in modern history.
Lenin, for example, routinely denounced parliaments as a charade, in as much as 'mere political liberty' was pointless (he claimed), as long as the working class could not seek fulfillment, given the 'objective' class structure of society.
Now, up to a point, I think, even non-radicals would agree that you need some sort of material, etc., security to be free. To the extent that terror (or want) suppresses one's ability to act, it's clearly an oppression and constraint.
But what characterizes the neo-conservative (and 19th century extreme, Bolshevik radical position) is the idea that security / socialism is a sufficient basis for human freedom. If you're safe, and have bread, you're free.
Yet the contempt for political liberties as mere formalities this implies gives a despotic edge to this way of thinking. In real life, 'non-ideological' people can see--based on all kinds of historic experience--that polities need some ability to set limits on the use of political power, or else the plan to make you free devolves into authoritarianism.
Here, in some ways, we see our own neo-cons coming quite close to the ideological positions their forefathers attacked during the Cold War. Is this another case of Oedipal rivalry? Just as George W. has to outdo G.H.W. Bush, so too the neo-Cons have to outdo the old-style cons--in both cases primarily through dangerous bravado, rather than intellectual depth.
Let's face it: our neo-cons are Romantic nationalists, of the radical rather than liberal stripe.
-
power base?
Glenn, thanks for helping frame the debate, once again.
It’s an interesting phenomenon, isn’t it? I simply don’t have a clue where these guys think their base is. They’ve thrown traditional conservatives over the side now; who do they have left? I suppose they believe religious conservatives still are on their side, but I would question their staying power. For the most part, historically (pre 1980’s) that faction hasn’t been all that politically active, and I just don’t see this empire building as being their cup of tea.
-
who will support them?
Republican congressmen have said that they got more respect from Clinton that they get from their own party with George Bush.
As more and more criminal behavior comes out about the White House, where will their support be in Congreaa?