I won't link to any stories or posts about Democratic foreknowledge of America's renewed dedication to torture. You know where to find them. The fact that the leadership of the party is committed to establishing a secret, extrajudicial, international gulag in which to indefinitely detain prisoners and torture them to extract mostly false confessions is indicative that the party itself is committed to such principles, and that those "good Dems" routinely pimped by Atrios and Kos and the rest of the gang of internet enablers are mere feckless outsiders without power, influence, or significance. To cast a vote for any Democrat at the national level is to cast a vote directly for the torture of other human beings. It is not acquiescence or acceptance; it's endorsement. If you call yourself a Democrat, you're a torturer. If you vote for Hillary Clinton, you're a torturer. There you go. Simple as that. This is not a complex moral equation. There were members of the Nazi party who did not personally approve of the elimination of European Jewry through genocide. There were members of the Soviet Communist Party that did not personally approve of the purges and the gulags. But they signed their names.
32 comments:
IOZ, statements like these show that you're objectively pro-terrorist. Worse, you're objectively PRO-RALPH NADER!
Butbutbut...the Dems promise to lower college tuition by up to 4%! That PROVES they're better than the republicans!
Thanksralph!
Fun comments on this very subject.
Feel free to mock me, but I'm curious to know if you think Kucinich's hands are covered in blood as well. He wasn't one of the four Dems who were briefed. He's tried to get Cheney impeached. He says what he actually believes and doesn't hedge. And, perhaps most importantly, is ignored by almost the entire Democratic establishment.
This isn't a "more and better Democrats" argument, but based on this post it seems like you would paint Kucinich with the same brush as the 99% of Democrats who are craven supporters of torture. Am I wrong?
Interesting IOZ, do you think that a non-voting American citizen is less culpable for the torture and empire building done by the Federal government than a citizen who votes for one of the two major parties?
I mean, you still live here, you still pay taxes, you do not violently oppose the government, you still have a job and participate in the national economy, I bet you even consume goods that were produced in an immoral manner. . . are your hands really any cleaner than someone who spends 30 seconds in a voting booth?
YF
Feel free to mock me, but I'm curious to know if you think Kucinich's hands are covered in blood as well. He wasn't one of the four Dems who were briefed. He's tried to get Cheney impeached. He says what he actually believes and doesn't hedge.
...
There were members of the Nazi party who did not personally approve of the elimination of European Jewry through genocide. There were members of the Soviet Communist Party that did not personally approve of the purges and the gulags. But they signed their names.
...
Also...
...those "good Dems" routinely pimped by Atrios and Kos and the rest of the gang of internet enablers are mere feckless outsiders without power, influence, or significance.
I mean, this isn't to agree or disagree with IOZ or anything, but you people do actually read his posts before you start asking "tough" questions, right?
And YF. No offense brother, but whether or not IOZ provides more or less tacit support for torture than a Democratic voter is entirely immaterial to the issue of whether or not voting for Democrats constitutes tacit support for torture
Just sayin'...
Voting for Kucinich means Pelosi as majority leader. Voting for Feingold means Rockefeller as Intelligence Committee chair. I'm all for contrarianism when possible, but this episode does give some clarity to these longstanding arguments.
One of the things that may be worth musing about, is how far complicity can be extended. If you don't vote Democrat, but don't say anything publicly? If you go to demonstrations, but don't engage in effective action? If you don't expatriate yourself?
When I travel, all anyone knows is that I'm American. These debates may reflect little more than the narcissism of small differences.
T_S: Well, if participation in the American economy is a tacit endorsement of torture (which I think it arguably is), then I wonder if act of voting is really an aggravating factor?
If I'm a bad person for being an american citizen, am I at all a worse person for voting for a major party?
YF
I guess Bradrocket is young and this has never happened to him before. Bill Clinton got my cherry when I was an idealistic college student.
Yeah. He didn't talk to me at school the next day either, and then he called me fat in front of his friends.
If I'm a bad person for being an american citizen, am I at all a worse person for voting for a major party?
Oh, obviously. Of course. What a silly question.
But in fairness, I think that the point our host is making here is that, in spite of the constant stream of netrootsian rhetoric, voting for Democrats is voting for torture, just like voting for Republicans.
YF:
At least non-voters don't help legitimize the two party system, for whatever that's worth. At least they can say they didn't help grant the gov't a popular torture "mandate." TPTB need their (weakening) claim to legitimacy -- why help them bolster this claim?
As for practical differences, not much unless it happens on a massive scale.
I don't think your snide refutation is as strong as you think it is, mr. the_system.
Trying to fight the system has to count for something. Kucinich is doing more than "not personally approving" of what our government is doing.
I don't understand why you feel the need to be a complete asshole to make your points, the_system.
I take it back- don't feel free to mock me.
mr bluestar . sure kuchinicj was FIGHTING the system when he meekly agreed to vote / follow / support kerry .
i have yet to hear from him that he will only support fellow Dems who are with him in principles / ideals .
i am glad he is raising the issues but one has to seriously ask the question how much it is ( or will end up ) as to keep unhappy masses in line for the party .
badri
I don't think your snide refutation is as strong as you think it is, mr. the_system.
I didn't refute anything, snidely or otherwise. I only pointed out that our host answered your questions about what he believes about people like Kucinich before you ever even asked them, in the same post you replied to.
Again, you do actually read this stuff before you post, right?
And really, if you can't take a little snark with your special pleading, then boy are you in the wrong place.
Not At All Assholeishly,
MR. the_system
The Kucinich question is pretty easy to answer, people: If he's against torture, he'll become an independent immediately, because there is no denying that the party he currently belongs to is pro-torture. If he doesn't switch parties, then he's cool with torture.
Party Pooper.
In years past, when the Democrats were out of power and therefore untested, and the stakes were not so high as democracy versus American-style fascism, it was still possible to say that people like Ralph Nader wanted to "make things worse" and "heighten the contradictions" so that people would vote the Revolution into office instead.
Now that the Demcrats have had a majority and mandate for a year, and look what they've done with it, Democratic "loyalists" like Denis Kucinich (and many blog commentators) are the ones who want things to get worse before getting better.
"We gotta elect an overwhelming majority of pro-torture Democrats who will continue all the Bush policies, in spirit if not the letter; then 2 or 3 elections from now, the voters will finally be ready to replace all of them with real liberals like me."
Yeh-RIGHT.
So if I wish to stop contributing to "the machine," as it were, I should perform one of the following lifestyle choices:
1. Leave the country.
2. Move to a bunker in rural Alabama.
3. Shoot myself in the head.
I think it'd be easier for me to just support torture. Someone show me how to place the electrodes on the testicles and I'll be off. I've always wanted to do this in my personal life for more sensual reasons but hey, if I can get paid by Uncle Sam that just makes it that much better.
Are we back to IOZ's "drive slow in the fast lane - FOR THE REVOLUTION!!!" thing again?
strasmangelo jones:
Why do I get the feeling you didn't get the point of that whole metaphor? Oh right, it's because you apparently can't read. I'll reiterate: The Democratic Party is pro-torture. This cannot be disputed by reasonable, thinking adults. Dennis Kucinich is part of the Democratic Party. So is Russ Feingold. So are a lot of guys who pwoggies point to as "the good ones". If they're anti-torture, they'll become Independents ASAP. It's fantastically simple, and yet so many of you, as before, throw up your hands and say "But what are we to do? Move to the Moon??"
Here's what you do, you fucking lemmings: Stop supporting torture by supporting the Democratic party. Use some of that disposable income to donate to a third party who will actually uphold the progressive ideals you claim to embrace. If no such party exists, start it and convince your friends to join it and donate money too. If you're not willing to do that, shut the fuck up with your hand-wringing.
I finally figured out what I think bugs me sometimes about IOZ, even while agreeing anywhere from 80 to 100% with the substance of what he says on a given issue.
One can, I think, disagree about the level of complicity shared by, say, a tax paying non-voter versus a tax paying voter. And we can ALL agree that none of the options on offer promise much in the way of actually changing the system, short term. And we can agree that what one might call the IOZ position - opt out of the electoral system, speak up, continue to live here, pay your taxes, avoid violent resistance - is, morally, a perfectly valid response.
What rankles is the level of his condemnation of people who genuinely are anti torture and non-interventionist, yet make a clear eyed decision to do what little they can to try to influence events in a positive manner through the electoral system. By all means, argue that what they are doing is futile; I'm increasingly convinced that it is. By all means, rail against the vast majority of elected Democrats who are indeed morally compromised at best. By all means, jump all over those "progressives" who are willing to compromise on torture, for example, to get a marginally better domestic policy.
But to suggest that EVERYONE who is trying to effect change through the electoral system is not just deluded, but morally compromised, is a step too far. Democratic politicians who voted in favor of the torture bill. yes, they are torturers. Democratic politicians who knew about the torture and remained silent. Yes, they are torturers. People who vote Democratic because they like their domestic policies, with out regard to their positions on torture? Torturers.
But Democratic politicians who voted against the torture bill, and who weren't briefed on the torture, and the people who are voting for those people. Call them deluded, call them naive, call them ineffectual, call them a lot of things, but they aren't torturers.
But to suggest that EVERYONE who is trying to effect change through the electoral system is not just deluded, but morally compromised, is a step too far.
Oh, I won't "suggest" anything, I'll happily say it outright: Anyone "trying to effect change" through the electoral system by becoming (or voting for) a Democrat or a Republican is morally compromised.
The Democratic Party is institutionally committed to the same broad imperial agenda as its Republican counterpart, an agenda that necessitates a tacitly pro-torture policy stance, among a thousand other unsavory bits. Denis Kucinich, no matter how sincere his stated desire that the United States not torture, cannot "effect change" in that regard from within the Democratic Party. If he made any serious attempt to do so, he'd be thrown under a bus. All that remains to sincerely anti-torture Democrats, then, is to lend an anti-torture veneer to an objectively pro-torture political party. Yet still they sign on the dotted line. The phrase "morally compromised" is entirely fair in this instance, methinks.
The frustrating thing about the so-called progressive movement being spearheaded by the likes of Kos is that its partisans unashamedly and unreservedly believe in the essentially limitless potential of endless, absurd rearrangement of the political furniture to effect what in reality would be monumental changes in the national character. More and Better Democrats!
It's a tawdry little fairy tale, so utterly divorced from everything that we know about the operation and overall disposition of human institutions that it would be pitiful if it weren't so contemptibly effective at absolving the supposed agents of all this change; the Obamas, Feingolds, Clintons, Pelosis, ad inf. of any responsibility to genuinely play the part. Wouldn't want to jeopardize the next election after all, which, it just so happens, is also the most important election ever, times infinity plus one!!!
But shit, what do I know? All hail President Clinton!
(Now with 100% more vagina!)
By that standard anyone who continues to live here and pay taxes is morally compromised. None of us in this country have clean hands.
I actually agree with most of your post. It's the remaining 10% that I don't. Whether it's an important 10%, I'm not so sure, but for the record, to put it as bluntly as possible:
Anyone who thinks that voting for either major party is going to fundementally change the broader imperial agenda is, of course, kidding themselves. But the alternative courses of action are pretty clearly equally impotent. The question then becomes: what does one do in the face of such impotence? The fact is that, if you really want to get down to basics, EVERY possible response, aside from perhaps leaving the country, is, at some level, morally compromised.
Personally, I pick the IOZ opt out (but speak loudly) option. But I don't think that you can say that the person who tries (however futiley) to work within the system to at least ameliorate the horror is any MORE morally compromised than someone who opts out, or makes empty gestures at third parties (which is, if possible, an even more impotent response, given that the American people overwelmingly support the imperial venture).
I'm not going to waste anybody's time by rehashing old arguments, but sometimes it does make a difference which imperialist makes the decisions. To make this conctete, while ALL of the presidential candidates are horrible by any decent moral standard, Guilliani is, I think, pretty clearly in a class of his own. While things could, and probably will, get a whole lot worse with any of them, with Guilliani you have a roughly 99% chance that a billion people will die in a nuclear holocaust. I mean, that COULD happen under someone else's watch, but with Rudy it's pretty much guarenteed.
Now, one could argue that it doesn't make ENOUGH of a difference to justify participation in a corrupt system; all I'm saying, ultimately, is that, given that ALL of us (that is, anyone living here and paying taxes) is morally compromised to a significant extent, we should cut people at least a little slack regarding their decision as to how to deal with a pretty hopeless situation.
that is one heck of a leap of faith, there 4:25.
subvert the troops.
support the taxpayers!
But we, too, need to accept our responsibility. Thoreau went to jail because -- in protest of the war and as a refusal to participate in it -- he declined to pay his taxes. I myself, though I oppose the war, am no tax resistor. In other words, when the authorities order me to cough up (or, rather, when they confiscate the war machine's cut directly from my paycheck), I utter nary a peep.
The laws and mechanisms under which I do this are designed precisely to exculpate me, to diminish my own sense of my responsibility. But whether the law treats me as a child, an object, an idiot or a victim, still I am responsible as I pay for what I hate.
But the alternative courses of action are pretty clearly equally impotent.
Yes, but impotence and overt complicity are separate things. At the risk of being pedantic...
Both the Republican and Democratic parties are committed to the ideal of American Empire. This commitment exists at the institutional level and persists independently of the predilections of individual party members. As such, while it is permissible and perhaps even encouraged in the name of good, old-fashioned propaganda value for a Denis Kucinich to, say, publicly disapprove of US torture policy when the other side gets caught with its hand in the cookie jar, for him to try to actually do something about it is expressly forbidden because the existence of such a policy is vital to the interests of the Empire.
His very membership in the Democratic Party thus precludes him from taking meaningful action. And he is fully aware of this, which is why he's done absolutely nothing to seriously rock the boat. The man isn't some guerrilla operative using the Democratic Party as a means of slipping his real agenda past some imaginary gatekeeper. He's a fucking Democrat, whether he approves of torture or not, and his primary interest is the perceived health of his party and his status within it.
While it's true that I pay taxes and that perhaps I haven't the backbone to face the consequences of refusing to do so, the Democratic Party doesn't get to appropriate my principles and use them as window dressing to disguise the fact that it shares not a single one.
Those of us who refuse to play may not accomplish much, but at least we make it harder for the people running the game to lie about what the game is. Which so far is precisely one more thing than the legions of Progressive voters and politicians have managed to do.
at least we make it harder for the people running the game to lie about what the game is.
Really? Maybe that's where we disagree. Seems they don't have much problem lying, even with people opting out and spreaking the truth.
But again, I'm not criticizing your approach; as I said, I mostly share it. I just don't think that your condemnation of the people who don't share that approach is entirely fair. (Which isn't to deny that many, if not most, so called progressives deserve any insult that you can fling at them).
Parenthetically, I also disagree on some of the details - for instance, I don't think that support of torture is "vital to the interests of the Empire." On the contrary, I think that that was one of the many ways in which the current administration (inadvertantly) undermined the long term interests of the empire. But I'll grant you that that disagreement doesn't have much substantive meaning, as the Democrats certainly have been deeply complicit in that policy.
On the contrary, I think that that was one of the many ways in which the current administration (inadvertantly) undermined the long term interests of the empire.
I'll agree insofar as more-or-less shouting the fact that you're torturing people from the rooftops in some twisted and nonsensical attempt to demonstrate your tough-on-terror bonafides is probably generally unwise. Then again, I never said our masters were especially bright.
But as a means of controlling the native populations of our various and sundry foreign conquests, torture is where it's at, man. Don't leave home without it.
Re torture as a means of controlling the locals - actually, I think historically torture has been more a means of controlling internal dissent. I'm not sure that it's terribly efficacious as a means of controlling a restive colony.
The means for doing that ... well, history may not be much of a guide, since technologically the balance has changed, and not in favor of the imperial power (which is why empire is not just immoral these days, but probably, in the long run, unwise as well, but I digress). In the past 100 years or so, the main way that restive colonial populations have been successfully controlled is the application of extreme indiscriminate violence, to an extent even exceeding that practiced by the United States. Ironically, if one is going to pursue empire, the most extreme of the pro empire crazies may be right - the problem is that we haven't gone far enough. But that doesn't mean torture, which just inflames the victim populations, it means wholesale slaughter of civilians.
Of course, that's a morally horrifying conclusion, and one of the many reasons not to pursue empire in the first place. There is reason to believe that the extreme but not entirely indiscriminate application of violence currently practiced by the United States, torture included, manages to be at the same time both morally horrifying AND counterproductive.
Of course, the "dovish" side of the empire consensus (and yes, I'm using the term ironically) favors other, marginally less violent methods of control, which might also be more "effective." (And, yes, that's one reason why supporting the Democrats is arguably morally dubious - their version of empire may (and I emphasize may) mean fewer dead bodies, but, by being more effective, may be more persistent.) Of course, that may still be preferable to, say, Rudy, "Armageddon" Guilliani.
But this meandering post has gone far afield from where I started, so enough for now.
actually, I think historically torture has been more a means of controlling internal dissent. I'm not sure that it's terribly efficacious as a means of controlling a restive colony.
You're right, of course, but those massive displays of indiscriminate violence just wouldn't play very well on the teevee. And lord knows some fuckup with a cell phone camera would wind up getting the whole thing.
Ah, how one pines for the good old days when you could even get God Hisself to endorse that shit.
Post a Comment