Witches Commies and Terrorists Oh My!

Posted on February 9, 2010 by LtL

For a country that prides itself on democracy and freedom, the U.S. has a long history of blind and unthinking allegiance to scapegoating whoever the government wants scapegoated. What is amusing is that this blind, unthinking, slack-jawed version of democracy, while not a product of any one political party, is particularly apparent in the conservative love of authoritarianism that is in marked opposition to the rhetoric they often spew about freedom and liberty and the rule of law.

From Glenn Greenwald:

All throughout the Bush years, no matter what one objected to — illegal eavesdropping, torture, rendition, indefinite detention, denial of civilian trials — the response from Bush followers was the same: “But these are Terrorists, and Terrorists have no rights, so who cares what is done to them?” What they actually meant was: “the Government has claimed they are Terrorists,” but in their minds, that was the same thing as: “they are Terrorists.” They recognized no distinction between “a government accusation” and “unchallengeable truth”; in the authoritarian’s mind, by definition, those are synonymous. The whole point of the Bush-era controversies was that — away from an actual battlefield and where the Constitution applies (on U.S. soil and/or towards American citizens wherever they are) — the Government should have to demonstrate someone’s guilt before it’s assumed (e.g., they should have to show probable cause to a court and obtain warrants before eavesdropping; they should have to offer evidence that a person engaged in Terrorism before locking them in a cage, etc.). But to someone who equates unproven government accusations with proof, those processes are entirely unnecessary. Even in the absence of those processes, they already know that these persons are Terrorists. How do they know that? Because the Government said so. Even when it comes to their fellow citizens, that’s all the “proof” that is needed. (Link)

And just to go on to prove that this attitude is not limited to the conservative idiocy of GOP supporters, Greenwald points to a disturbing trend in Obama supporters and liberals who are reacting in exactly the same way when the Government points its finger and says, “that one is a TERRORIST.” Idiocy and stupidity and fear and knee-jerk reactions and the desire for vengeance and scapegoating are human traits and not solely owned and operated by tea-partiers, GOP supporters, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-nazis, etc. The Red Scare and the Communist witch hunts of the 50s were made possible by liberals who allowed and bought into the fears that the Government was peddling. Obama, for whatever reasons, has decided to continue using the same mechanism of scapegoating that Bush put into place.

Without the rule of law, we have lost.

Without the a system of justice that depends on proof and judicial process and the ability to defend oneself against one’s accuser, our experiment in democracy is nearing an end. Like it or not, civilization needs to do its level best to keep emotions and personal feelings out of our justice system and depend as much as possible on the rule of law. Even for the most brutal killer. Even for the most guilty of terrorists. Even, and especially, for anyone accused and not yet proven guilty of any damn thing.

One would think that, as American’s, we might all be able to get behind the rule of law instead of mob mentality. Sure, each and every one of us has felt the siren song of vengeance and blood-for-blood. As a nation, we should be better than our basest selves, otherwise we are no better than those who blow up innocent people to make a point.

Knowing when to shut up

Posted on November 18, 2009 by LtL

I love to engage in debate and argumentation. When done in good faith, I don’t mind debating people who might believe in all sorts of things that I think are wrong or silly or dangerously stupid. The good faith bit is important to me and I always try to hold myself to the rhetorical standard that I hold others. Sometimes I fail and yes, Bush and Palin can bring out all sorts of ad hominem attacks from me, and often my logic can be clouded by empathy when faced with real world pain or a sometimes self-righteous passion for justice when faced with so much suffering and violence and injustice in the world.

I tend to be good with words and logic and ideas so even when I don’t have a lot of factual basis for my arguments, I can often mount a pretty damn convincing argument for my point of view. Because of this, I will often argue a point without a strong basis in facts or information.

I’m going to try to know when to shut up.

My new rule for myself (and one I’m sure I’ll break over time, but the value is in the effort and over time effort will become practice will become habit) is this: stop pretending I know things I don’t know.

Seems simple doesn’t it? The hard part is distinguishing between what I believe and what I know. The truth of the matter is I, along with most everyone, don’t know very much. I do know that. Of course I get through the day based on any number of facts, but most of what I use to understand the world is based on inferences and belief. I have no evidence that most people are decent, but I tend to move through the world with that assumption. I, personally, have no evidence that Cheney isn’t right and that torture is a find and dandy thing to help protect this country. I believe he is wrong in this, just as I believe that flu vaccinations are a good thing. In order for me to enter a meaningful conversations about these and so many other topics, I have to first admit that my argument is based on a belief that is based on logic, or research, or my trust in the experience and knowledge of specific other people. I then need to shut up and really listen to the other persons argument.

And by listen, I don’t mean wait for them to stop talking to I can make my next point, I mean, listen to their argument and their facts. I mean, take the time to understand their logic (or lack thereof), to try to separate belief from evidence. Then ask them questions, try to get them to clarify their logic or explain the veracity of their sources.

I am not suggesting that you can’t defend your beliefs or have a meaningful conversation about topics even when you don’t have research or direct experience at your disposal. I am suggesting that we would all be better off if we started by acknowledging the terms and limits of our knowledge and recognizing the difference between evidence, inference, logic, facts, and belief.

The Fatalism of Never Changing Minds

Posted on August 9, 2009 by LtL

Recently, while I was at work, I overheard a co-worker’s conversation on the phone about how he never talks politics with friends or acquaintances because “you can never change anybody’s mind about stuff like that.” My first instinct was to agree with him, while my second was the realization that to accept this statement as a prima facia fact about political discourse is nothing short of a deeply pessimistic fatalism.

Granted, there are a lot of issues over which people will dig themselves down into a trench and refuse to budge, but if we begin with the assumption that communication, facts, or a deeper understanding of the world are entirely useless when it comes to human discourse, then we have, in a sense, given up before we’ve even begun. This isn’t to say that getting into heated debates with people who disagree with your beliefs should be pursued at the dinner party or the office lunch. Of course they shouldn’t. There are appropriate times and appropriate places for intelligent conversations about our world. But I have to believe that changing someone’s mind is never impossible. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. Or at least not if the dialogue is conducted in good faith and both parties are willing to really and truly listen to the other’s facts, arguments, and ideas.

And therein lies the difficulty, because most people (too often myself included) are not willing to truly listen to ideas that are divergent from their own perceptions of the world. Of course, compounding this problem is the fact that many people don’t argue their beliefs in good faith or with a desire to enable communication and change. Yelling that Obama is a Kenyan born Nazi is not arguing in good faith (primarily due to the fact that there are, well, no facts to be found in their arguments).

I would like to believe that if faced with a compelling argument, backed by logic and factual evidence, I am willing to change my mind about issues and ideas and politics. Yes, I have my own emotional biases about how the world works, about what is fair and what is important. Yes, I am ideologically slanted toward a politics of fairness and equality and believe that government should play an active role in leveling the playing field for all its citizens. So I tend to vote Democrat and self-identify as progressive. If you come at me from a conservative viewpoint, I will naturally become wary and defensive and believe that I know better than you. Which, is most likely the same emotional state you will be in at the time.

However, if we can talk about facts and use reason in our discourse and if you extend respect to my viewpoint, I will do the same—or at least try, since we are none of us perfect. We can have productive conversations about differing political views only if we start from a position of respect and a willingness to listen. Sure, that doesn’t happen all that much these days, and sure, many in the media love the fact that our political discourse has become an ongoing episode of the Jerry Springer show, but it’s not impossible.

Because if it really were impossible to change our minds, to allow compelling arguments and new understands to change our view of the world, then we could never learn and change and grow.

The flip side to the notion of changeability, is that if someone is not willing to argue in good faith, or truly listen to you, or bother to respect your viewpoint, then don’t waste your time arguing with them because those are indeed the people whose minds you will never change.

The question we all have to ask ourselves each time we engage in a dialogue about firmly held beliefs is this: can I truly respect this person and can I truly listen to their argument. If the answer is no, that doesn’t make you a bad person. I have no respect for a Birther or a Flat-Earther and so getting into a dialogue with someone who holds those beliefs would be, at best, futile and frustrating for both sides. Being on opposite sides of a political issue is not what makes us enemies of one another. Rather, it is our actions and behaviors toward one another that will lead us to either civil disagreements (what we should all strive for) or outright war against each other (what Fox News and other “conservative” mouthpieces are promulgating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week).

And one does have to wonder why so many people seem so invested in making the citizens of the United States of America into enemies of each other . . .

(Cross posted at Daily Kos)