Friday, August 24, 2007
Victory in Sight!Petaeus White House report. See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and wherever else unmitigated bullshit is sold.
It seems that every time Bush ratchets up the absurdity, the war party ups their buy-in. The actual news might not do justice to their fantasies, but what the hey, that's the liberal media for you. I'm not sure how much insight anyone else can bring to this, when it comes to probing the mysteries of American conservatism. Once you've started serving up the Kool-Aid you really can't go back, I guess. All you can do is more insist that the horrible scene unfolding around you has to be the prologue to a better world. Perhaps their strategy is to grind us down though the sheer relentlessness of their own tiresome foolishness. I know I hardly feel like trying to respond to them on the merits of their arguments anymore. What evidence do we have that reality-based analysis has any impact on them anyway?
It's a howling crescendo of self-delusion, and the only question is, once it all finally explodes, which way will the blast travel?
The right is in full-on pony mode over Iraq now, between Bush's latest speech and the upcoming
It seems that every time Bush ratchets up the absurdity, the war party ups their buy-in. The actual news might not do justice to their fantasies, but what the hey, that's the liberal media for you. I'm not sure how much insight anyone else can bring to this, when it comes to probing the mysteries of American conservatism. Once you've started serving up the Kool-Aid you really can't go back, I guess. All you can do is more insist that the horrible scene unfolding around you has to be the prologue to a better world. Perhaps their strategy is to grind us down though the sheer relentlessness of their own tiresome foolishness. I know I hardly feel like trying to respond to them on the merits of their arguments anymore. What evidence do we have that reality-based analysis has any impact on them anyway?
It's a howling crescendo of self-delusion, and the only question is, once it all finally explodes, which way will the blast travel?
Labels: general rightwing looniness, Iraq
¶ Posted by Paul Curtis 11:28 AM
Comments:
<< Home
"I know I hardly feel like trying to respond to them on the merits of their arguments anymore. What evidence do we have that reality-based analysis has any impact on them anyway?"
-- When we argue with such opponents, it is not mainly to convince them. We argue to develop our own view in the face of the opponent, and we argue to convince or influence the audience to the debate. For these two purposes, we must acknowledge the merits of the opponents' views.
So, keep cool and patient. THEY are convinced to be right just as me and you. Step into their shoes and UNDERSTAND them. THEY are convinced that THEY perceive reality correctly. We have to UNDERSTAND how that is possible.
"It's a howling crescendo of self-delusion, and the only question is, once it all finally explodes, which way will the blast travel?"
-- Well, when self-delusion "explodes", the self-delusive people go mad, berserk, run amok, will use their arsenale against the rest of the world.
... it would be better if self-delusion "implodes" ... or runs out of steam ...
From my European point of view: How could a Running Wild US be contained by the rest of the world? Or appeased?
A tiger is a tiger is a tiger. Too strong for you. But you have to live with the beast - and you can live with him as long as the tiger behaves like a (sane) tiger. Alas, what when the tiger becomes a man-eater? And you are still not strong enough to take him out? - Fairy tales offer a grim option: sacrifice a virgin to cool his appetite.
Back to non-methaphorical language:
I tend to understand the moderates (the Democratic Center), although I enjoy the sharp critiques like yours or Greenwald's or Yglesias' and others.
I think in terms of containment and appeasement, not in terms of killing the beast.
We cannot kill the neocon theocon beast. And the US will take the whole world with them into hell if humiliation would run too deep to be digested.
-- When we argue with such opponents, it is not mainly to convince them. We argue to develop our own view in the face of the opponent, and we argue to convince or influence the audience to the debate. For these two purposes, we must acknowledge the merits of the opponents' views.
So, keep cool and patient. THEY are convinced to be right just as me and you. Step into their shoes and UNDERSTAND them. THEY are convinced that THEY perceive reality correctly. We have to UNDERSTAND how that is possible.
"It's a howling crescendo of self-delusion, and the only question is, once it all finally explodes, which way will the blast travel?"
-- Well, when self-delusion "explodes", the self-delusive people go mad, berserk, run amok, will use their arsenale against the rest of the world.
... it would be better if self-delusion "implodes" ... or runs out of steam ...
From my European point of view: How could a Running Wild US be contained by the rest of the world? Or appeased?
A tiger is a tiger is a tiger. Too strong for you. But you have to live with the beast - and you can live with him as long as the tiger behaves like a (sane) tiger. Alas, what when the tiger becomes a man-eater? And you are still not strong enough to take him out? - Fairy tales offer a grim option: sacrifice a virgin to cool his appetite.
Back to non-methaphorical language:
I tend to understand the moderates (the Democratic Center), although I enjoy the sharp critiques like yours or Greenwald's or Yglesias' and others.
I think in terms of containment and appeasement, not in terms of killing the beast.
We cannot kill the neocon theocon beast. And the US will take the whole world with them into hell if humiliation would run too deep to be digested.
# posted by 
: 1:45 PM
: 1:45 PM
Hi Leo, thanks for another excellent comment. Your points on the utility of argument are well-taken, and I certainly agree -- though one has to deal with moments of frustration nonetheless.
There are, in fact, material and political limitations on the US "running wild" -- despite what many (both in the pro- and anti-war columns) seem to believe, US foreign and military policy is not free from either internal or external constraints. One key question, the only one which I think this little blog is even semi-qualified to address, is how we take advantage of some of those domestic constraints (not just the Constitution, but politics) to return American foreign policy to a position of healthy interaction with the world.
Post a Comment
There are, in fact, material and political limitations on the US "running wild" -- despite what many (both in the pro- and anti-war columns) seem to believe, US foreign and military policy is not free from either internal or external constraints. One key question, the only one which I think this little blog is even semi-qualified to address, is how we take advantage of some of those domestic constraints (not just the Constitution, but politics) to return American foreign policy to a position of healthy interaction with the world.
<< Home
