Extreme Political Partisanship as a Form of Psychosis

[ulTRAX]

I know this is going to piss some off. Too bad... it has to be said.

Reading some of the comments on Leftist Blogs about what happened in Falluja.... it reminds me that some, Left and Right, fall victim to a form of extreme partisanship that warps their entire world view. They lose their humanity and divide the world into "what helps the cause" or "what hurts the cause". I see it as a form of irrationality indistinguishable from psychosis.

I know that I wrestle with this... and have to fight the occasional thought that because of Bush's arrogance and the Right's imperial view of America... they DESERVE to have Iraq become a quagmire.... maybe it will hurt Bush in November. Such thoughts have to be rejected simply because it just means more death and destruction. Is that a price we want OTHERS to pay just to gain some political advantage? Better to turn that rage into wanting the bastard impeached for this immoral and illegal war.

I think the Left should reject those whose extremism pollutes our message. Let the Right have a monopoly on such political psychosis.

[el_gato]

1. thought police?

hmm...sounds rather distasteful

[lapislzi]

15. not to put words in ulTRAX's mouth, but...

I think the idea is to self-censor.

Yes, I think many of us have these thoughts, along the "so there! I toldja so!" meridian. We are human. But, as humans, we must (imho) let our humanity take over. I'm always telling people to take the high road. Ultimately, spite hurts our cause.

[charlie]

22. What's the problem with "i toldja so"?

It's the undeniable truth. They were told, and the thought that Dubya's rash ambitions could turn out badly evinced a barrage of retorts ranging from "you're a racist who could care less about the plight of Iraqis living under Saddam" to "you hate America." Finger-wagging over this avoidable state of affairs is NOT simple spite, nor is it mere satisfaction with their comeuppance without regard for the lives lost, regardless of what the original poster thinks.

[lapislzi]

25. It just begs the question, "OK, so now what?"

More construction, less destruction.

I know it's the truth as well as you do. If you think saying "I toldja so" is helpful, try saying it to your spouse when he/she messes up.

Spite is not particularly conducive to constructive exchange.

[charlie]

35. We're not married to the nutcase neocons

"I toldja so" is for a different crowd. You think anything we say will cause PNACers and America-firsters to relent in their madness? It's an assertion of our prescience. It's seizing the opportunity to say "you listened to those idiots and we got exactly what we predicted", just what those who can be swayed need to hear. Nothing at all wrong, immoral, or impolitic with that.

[lapislzi]

45. Yes, but you still have to move on from there

I just find it easier to skip the "I told you so" step, or to make it as brief as possible. "Yes, you fucked up big time, now this is what we have to do about it."

There's a time and a place for sanctimony, but I'm not sure that's it. Of course, I'm guilty of indulging in it from time to time.

[charlie]

48. Nope

That's accomodation, exactly what got us in this mess in the first place. Excluding what came before to focus on some sort of We're Here To Help, What Can We Do Now tack allows warmongers to further dispute our dissent, free from the constraints of culpability for their miserable record. It's exactly what Bushco has been getting away with -- acting without worry about having to account for it's failures. They cannot be thwarted without being discredited in the public mind, and eschewing the opportunity to hammer them because you deem it "sanctimony", somehow distasteful in polite etiquette, is a guarantee that won't happen.

[lapislzi]

57. Hey, I love sanctimony as much as the next person

Nothing pisses them off faster than sanctimony, and I'm all for pissing them off as much as possible, as often as possible. I just don't find it constructive in this case. I think we can seize the opportunity to come across as the voice of reason.

Fix the problem, not the blame.

OK, fix the blame, but make it a separate issue.

[Romulus Quirinus]

51. OF course we are

They are are neighbors, co workers, relatives, friends, and fellow countrymen. Just because they are absolutely, unutterably wrong about how to run a government doesn't change that a bit!

Presuming I am an average example of humanity, I think most people feel the same as I do about being told "I told you so!" Little can put my back up more quickly or effectively.

That might be cathartic, but it doesn't really help much. ;)

[ulTRAX]

31. is some say that... then I'd respond....

charlie wrote: "Finger-wagging over this avoidable state of affairs is NOT simple spite, nor is it mere satisfaction with their comeuppance without regard for the lives lost, regardless of what the original poster thinks."

I have no problems with bashing Bush for this war. I certainly have done enough of this myself. If people said to me what they do to you... I'd have to remind them that Iraq had NOTHING to do with the war on terrorism... it's made us less safe. If Bush's policies are to DISOWN past US policies that installed and kept in power such murderous dictators as Saddam and the Shah of Iran to power... then let him say so. Let Bush bring those in the US government who helped install and perpetuate the reign of these thugs to justice. Maybe THEN I'd reevaluate Bush's claims that he wants to bring democracy to the Mideast.

[DeepModem Mom]

23. Yes, lapislzi -- "SELF-censor"

No one likes or wants censorship, but some, I believe, in their understandable anger, say things for shock-value, or just to flaunt their right to say them. The battle all here are engaged in is taking place, realistically, in a wider world, among people of different opinions and values. We need the support of a good number of those people. When we say things that are so inflammatory that they damage our cause in the wider world, we lessen our chance for success, and the change we all want. An internet forum is not a chat between a few friends having some beers -- especially not the most visible forum for discussion of liberal thought on the net. Our words here are available to the whole world, anytime, any place, and for any purpose.

[ulTRAX]

24. not to self-censor... to reexamine our beliefs

I'm not proposing self-censorship. This isn't about what we say... it's about what we think.... and whether our politics blinds us to our own principles.

[DeepModem Mom]

28. I understand, and I think you raise a very good point --

but I'm talking about something different. I don't think it's a bad idea to think before speaking. But, hey -- I'm a mom.

[lapislzi]

37. A certain amount of schadenfreude

is both understandable and unavoidable, I think. I admit to having had secret feelings of glee when Bush's misadventures blow up in his (and our) face. I recognize these for what they are--immature, mean-spirited, and destructive--and try to move beyond them towards meaningful exchange.

Do I wish I were a better person? Sure. I would hope that's where everyone on DU is headed.

I think we're saying the same thing here...if your principle is non-violence, for example, then you must examine your own conscience and reject violent thoughts.

[K-W]

2. No need to bring mental illness terms into this.

This isnt at all about partisanship. You could find examples of such things in any sphere of life.

What you are bringing up is a very complicated issue, and you need to frame it better. This isnt about partisanship or psychosis, it is about how we look at a complex situation.

[ulTRAX]

52. on psychosis

K-W wrote: "No need to bring mental illness terms into this. This isn't at all about partisanship. You could find examples of such things in any sphere of life."

Absolutely. It hasn't come up but let me make a clear distinction between organic-based psychosis and what I'd consider a self-induced psychosis. An example of the latter is typically someone who goes though life on auto-pilot lost in a closed loop ideological system that is self-justifying rather than self-correcting. For example I like to critique the Constitution on the basis of basic democratic principles. Because I do, I see political reality as different from those who believe the Framers were geniuses and the Constitution should not be changed. The latter operate on an intellectual level akin to a religious belief and are mostly immune to critiques such as mine. If they shared those core democratic principles, they'd have come to the same conclusions themselves.

"What you are bringing up is a very complicated issue, and you need to frame it better. This isn't about partisanship or psychosis, it is about how we look at a complex situation."

Politics for some is as much a source of irrationality as religion for others. At some point it's more enlightening to ignore the actual topic and look at the nature of the ideological system: is it open or closed?

[Joanne98]

3. I suppose your talking about the mercenaries comments.

In order to slow the march to the right. Somebody has to attack everything they do, no matter what it is. We're drawing the line in the sand. Attacking the right has to be relentless to work. If they don't like it they can stop marching. We're not going right anymore.

[RandomKoolzip]

4. Extremism will happen.

They have a right to express their opinions, just as much as we have a right to comment on them.

The first amendment applies to the lowliest, ugliest, and the most hateful among us......I can deal with what these people are saying about Fallujah, even though I don't totally agree.


But I doubt another shift to the center-right is gonna win us any elections anymore.......

[ulTRAX]

11. what sort of extremism?

RandomKoolzip wrote: "They have a right to express their opinions, just as much as we have a right to comment on them."

I never said someone should have their right to free speech taken away... did I?

"But I doubt another shift to the center-right is gonna win us any elections anymore....... "

Did I EVER suggest here... or support in other threads, another DLC center-right strategy? Numerous times I have criticized Kerry here at DU for not being Progressive enough. I'll be voting for him this November... but holding my nose as I do. That's a side issue.

There's clearly a difference between fervent adherence to political principles and political extremism that almost by nature is an amoral process which causes some to LOSE those principles. Ya... they think they are true to those beliefs, but the internal contradictions arise and get glossed over... Falluja is just an example. All I'm saying we MUST be aware of this insidious process.

When people begin to trade in their humanity for a cause, we see the slippery slope that gives rise to those even more extreme: the Hitlers and Stalins of the world.

[bryant69]

5. I don't know

I think the problem is that the left has a conscious and feels shame. The right knows this and so uses it against us. So when Daily Kos made his unfortunate comments (I agree with the sentiment, but he expressed himself poorly), we all feel shamed by our association with him. The right picks up on that and tries to divide us by calling on us to reject him. "If you are decent human being you have to condemn Kos, because God knows no decent liberal would ever misspeak like that."

The right unfortunately feels no shame, so when you try to hold the words of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Cal Thomas or Dennis Prager against them, they just laugh it off.

Oh well, better to keep one's soul than gain the whole world or so the old saying goes.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. And bryant69 makes line #10

See sig. (minor grammar: it's conscience, not conscious)

[bryant69]

10. Couldn't figure out what you were saying there

But I appreciate the compliment; and conscience is just one of many words I can't seem to spell with any consistancy.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. I get sentences that stand out of the DU wordspace

and put them into the quote collection in my signature. You'll recongnize some of the other 9 authors.

[ulTRAX]

19. ya Kos

I never read Kos.... but someone I know brought up what Kos said a few days ago and he seemed in total agreement. I was troubled by this. But as I said in my first post... this is something I wrestle with... at times I start to drift into seeing everything that happens as whether it will help or hurt Bush in November. I see others having no problem taking that extra step. I think we ALL need to be aware of this process.

[hbeale]

6. marching in lockstep? no thanks.

"I think the Left should reject those whose extremism pollutes our message."

Trouble is, who decides what is 'correct' for the 'Left', what is 'extremist', and what precisely is the 'message' that must be made inviolate? That's a pretty slippery slope.

Think about it. It's just as nuts as what the rightwingers do. Like el_gato pointed out, you are advocating thought control.

[ulTRAX]

20. thought police? bullshit!

ulTRAX: "I think the Left should reject those whose extremism pollutes our message."

hbeale wrote: "Trouble is, who decides what is 'correct' for the 'Left', what is 'extremist', and what precisely is the 'message' that must be made inviolate? That's a pretty slippery slope."

One can't go wrong by adhering to basic core priciples... whatever they are. What I'm saying is that there's a danger in becoming numb to, or embracing bad news because it "hurts" Bush.

"Think about it. It's just as nuts as what the rightwingers do. Like el_gato pointed out, you are advocating thought control."

As I said... let the Right have a monopoly on this. As for advocating thought control... bullshit.

[meow2u3]

65. Missing: a working definition of "extremist"

It's time for someone to supply one, and that someone will be Yours Truly.

Extremist: a person who stubbornly and, with such intense emotion as to be impervious to reason, holds political views which are radical, unpopular, out of the mainstream, and/or dangerous to self or others.

[newyawker99]

49. Hi hbeale!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Cocoa]

7. but who decides what's ok to say?

maybe some people think some of what YOU say is irrational. This could get tricky...

[ulTRAX]

14. what is irrational?

Maybe political irrationality is when one allows the imperatives of an irrational world... a dysfunctional political system... whatever... to take primacy over core political humanitarian and political principles.

I hope I'm never guilty of this.

[kentuck]

8. Thanks for your thoughts, ulTRAX....

It is something we should all be aware of, in my opinion. The young Iraqi lives are not worth more than the young American lives. They are both equally valuable. One is not more evil than the other. They follow leaders. That is where our anger should be directed. We should never cheer the loss of lives on either side.

[Skittles]

12. some responses to Falluja

indicated a disturbing loss of the sense of humanity.

[K-W]

16. BS, it doesnt indicate anything

Why are WE exagerating this. Whenever something very emotional happens there is a wide array of reactions. This isnt indicitive of anything. This is not some sign of the times, or indicator of society. If you hate what is going on in Iraq, it is absolutely rational to have some anger at the people who are over there doing it.

[Skittles]

42. I AM EXTEMELY ANGRY

but that doesn't translate into me agreeing with mutilating and hanging bodies, or believing that in the same circumstances I would do the same thing. No way - these are examples of EXTREMISM.

[ulysses]

60. who *is*

"agreeing with mutilating and hanging bodies"? Haven't seen that.

[kentuck]

17. I think it is important...

to understand that George W Bush is basically a revengeful and arrogant leader and a fish rots from the head first. We should not divert our partisan animosities toward the tail of the fish.

[lapislzi]

18. I applaud you, ulTRAX

I was getting a little cold up here on the high road.

And no, I don't mean sellout middle-of-the-road appeasement. You can take as left-wing a position as you want as long as you eschew extremism. I'm talking reclaiming the moral high ground, of elevating the debate and leaving those RW yobbos roiling around in the muck where they belong.

[K-W]

21. Oh grow up.

It is the arrogant niave ignorant idea of moral superiority that plagues the right wing. Lets keep it out of the left. Go be a republican if you want a black/white view of the world where you exist on an ideological plain of virtue.

[ulTRAX]

26. maybe we ARE talking about being grown up

K-W wrote: "Oh grow up. It is the arrogant naive ignorant idea of moral superiority that plagues the right wing. Lets keep it out of the left. Go be a republican if you want a black/white view of the world where you exist on an ideological plain of virtue

I have to disagree. I am a Progressive NOT because I'm a moral relativist but because I believe in the INHERENT desirability of Progressive values. You don't?

[K-W]

27. Dont change the subject.

We arent talking about progressive values here. We are talking about liberal ideological elitism.

[kentuck]

29. What's elitist...?

about not wishing to become that which you profess to hate?

[K-W]

32. Lets end this side discussion here.

In retrospect I was a bit harsh, I was replying to the tone of the first statement more than the meat of the post. I am just sensitive to anyone on either side of the aisle introducing a good/evil construct.

[kentuck]

34. I can understand all the sentiments stated...

But I think it is helpful to be reminded of our humanity from time to time because violence and hatred can blind us in times such as these. Hopefully, no one here will permit themselves to slide into that chasm...

[ulTRAX]

36. no change of subject here

K-W wrote: "Don't change the subject. We aren't talking about progressive values here. We are talking about liberal ideological elitism."

No change of subject here sport. YOUR words were:

"It is the arrogant naive ignorant idea of moral superiority that plagues the right wing. Lets keep it out of the left. Go be a republican if you want a black/white view of the world where you exist on an ideological plain of virtue."

I don't agree that believing in some core Progressive beliefs makes me a liberal elitist. I believe in the inherent desirability of Progressive values.... if you don't please just come out and say so. At this point I have no idea what you're standing up for.

[lapislzi]

39. Talk to me about moral high ground

Gandhi held it, MLK held it.

Just 'cause the RW's co-opted it doesn't mean we can't seize it back.

I'm not talking about a black/white world, but I see nothing wrong with ideological virtue. Nothing at all.

[ulTRAX]

50. no one thinks they are wrong

lapislzi wrote: "Talk to me about moral high ground. Gandhi held it, MLK held it.Just 'cause the RW's co-opted it doesn't mean we can't seize it back."

I doubt anyone goes though life thinking their core values are wrong. Most values are part of a self-justifying belief system. Once once accepts some basic assumptions, one deprives themselves of the intellectual tools needed to disprove the system. I think all are susceptible. Religions are prime examples of such closed-loop belief systems.

"I'm not talking about a black/white world, but I see nothing wrong with ideological virtue. Nothing at all."

Nor do I. I can only add that any belief system should be self-correcting as opposed to self-justifying.

[lapislzi]

55. Self-correcting means constant deconstruction

I attempt to unravel everything I hear and everything I believe. I try to trace beliefs and events back to prima causa. It's exhausting work, but it takes you to some startling conclusions at times. But once you arrive at a first cause, you can examine the belief and decide whether you can accept it. Every opinion I hold is a result of this deconstruction process. If I haven't yet deconstructed a series of events or a position, I will admit that I am unsure.

Again, UlTRAX, I think we're saying the same thing. It's the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Religion is a prime example of the former. If you start out with a conclusion, the odds are very good that you will be able to massage the data to fit the conclusion.

I have very few "core values," but the ones I do hold are cast in stone, and all else springs from them. It's what saves me from moral relativism. Compassion is one. Rationality is another.

[ulTRAX]

67. good post!

lapislzi wrote: "I have very few "core values," but the ones I do hold are cast in stone, and all else springs from them. It's what saves me from moral relativism. Compassion is one. Rationality is another."

Good post. Quick notes. Many claim they believe values X, Y or Z. How does one evaluate that claim? My test is to often ignore language and look for the internal consistency in their positions. For example the Right CLAIMED they wanted to get rid of the estate tax to protect small businesses and farms. The Democrats called their bluff and introduced a bill doing exactly that and the Right rejected it. It was clear that their STATED values were smokescreens for their hidden agenda... elimination of the estate tax for the super rich.
I think looking for such underlying consistencies is often more enlightening than listening to what a person is saying... especially in politics.

Conversely.... what would be a test for evaluating how important a value/principle is to a person? I'd maintain it looking for evidence how they implement that value/principle. Does a person try to clarify their values? Where does it stand compared to others in their hierarchy of values? Is one consistent in applying a value when relevant? Is one trying to identify and overcome obstacles that stand in the way?

[tom_paine]

30. You are correct about the problem, ulTRAX, BUT... (and it's a big but!)

Essentially, you are describing "zealotry". For the purposes of my post when I use the word "zealotry", I am referring to what you describe above.

Yes, zealotry is a form of psychosis.

HOWEVER, zealots have shows, from nazi Germany to the Freepers and Dittoheads that zealots can launder lies and create an Orwellian Lie of Reality that in no ways matches the real thing.

Further, some people, I shit you not, are swayed not by an argument itself, but by the zealous beliefe that people have of an argument.

You say we should avoid zealotry. In a perfect world, you'd be right. But the other side has (many of them) been purposefully programmed with Nazi-style zealotry (i.e. agreesor/opprssor with whiny victim's mentality...all the better to stomp innocents metaphorically, as the Freepers currently practice, or in reality, as the Nazis once parcticed and as the Freepers dream of practicing).

This zealotry has swayed many, has laundered untold lies, has done exactly what Mein Kampf predicted it would do to Germany.

When the Nazis are at your door, or the Free-Market Stalinists, a little backbone and zealotry goes a long way.

[ulTRAX]

53. all your examples are on the Right.

All your examples are on the Right. I don't think the Left is immune. Like math... someone can come to a correct answer without any understanding of how they got there or why the answer's correct.

Sometimes you have to ignore what a person claims to believe and focus on the quality of the intellectual process by which they arrived at a belief.

[tom_paine]

54. Perhaps my respect was misplaced.

You missed my point completely. The Left is certainly not immune, but the person who would weakly insist that this is the main point of my post probably shouldn't be so acerbic when criticizing the intellectual qualities of others.

Allow me to explain what you have missed: You have first of all committed a logical fallacy in comparing a math problem arrived at by dubious means with "conspiracy theories".

A few reasons why these are incomparable "apples and oranges":

1) A Math problem has a fixed answer which everyone can agree upon.

2) Asserting crimes is not the same as coming up with an answer to a Math problem using incorrect strategy. In many cases...in fact in most cases...people who finger suspects do NOT have proof.

Example (in case you are missing THIS point also): Several years ago, my bike was vandalized. When the Polcie asked me who I suspected, I told them who, though I had no proof. The Police investigated, got proof and fined the little bastard, making him come up with the $$$ to fix my bike, among other things)

Are you saying I was WRONG to besmirch this fine youngster's name because I didn't have proof and a paper trail leading directly to him & his little buddies? As I understand them, that is what Police do, seperate erroneous accustations from legitimate one through investigation.

Am I wrong about this? Should accusations without proof not be made in the first place and if so, what are the Police supposed to do all day?

As it relates to "conspiracy theories", until an accusation has been investigated, people are right to assume that the "weeding out" process of showing something illegitimate hasn't occurred.

3) Again you missed my point about Watergate, etc. The point is these were originally "conspiracy theories" that were investigated and proven. No investigations, unless people weren;t willing to look past base and ignorant denial-out-of-hand they would have remained conspiracy theories and you would have had hale and hearty fun mocking those "Watergate Conspiracy Wackos"

Clearly you think quite highly of your reasoning and deuction skills. It remains to be seen whther anyone else shares that lofty opinion.

Oh well, I tried to educate you the best I could. Not my fault if you choose to remain in an ignorant and dismissive mindset.

My apologies if you find this insulting: Just calling it like I see it as politely as I can.

[ulTRAX]

58. respect?

tom_paine wrote: "Perhaps my respect was misplaced. You missed my point completely. The Left is certainly not immune, but the person who would weakly insist that this is the main point of my post probably shouldn't be so acerbic when criticizing the intellectual qualities of others."

My observation was justified given that ALL your examples were on the Right. If you wish to clarify... fine.

tom_paine "Allow me to explain what you have missed: You have first of all committed a logical fallacy in comparing a math problem arrived at by dubious means with "conspiracy theories".
A few reasons why these are incomparable "apples and oranges":
1) A Math problem has a fixed answer which everyone can agree upon

No logical fallacies here. Clearly a math problem has one answer. That was NOT my point. My point was arriving at a correct conclusion, as in math, is not proof of a rational intellectual process. We all must be responsible for what we believe. This doesn't assume we all must be 100% correct... only be mindful enough of our root assumptions and our intellectual standards of proof to not fall into the intellectual trap of a closed, self-justifying ideological system.

TP: 2) Asserting crimes is not the same as coming up with an answer to a Math problem using incorrect strategy. In many cases...in fact in most cases...people who finger suspects do NOT have proof.

In your examples of conspiracy theories or of a crime.... I fail to see where you're making a point. Intellectually it SHOULD be quite easy for a rational person to be aware of what one does NOT know... and to develop plans to get to an answer.

TP: Are you saying I was WRONG to besmirch this fine youngster's name because I didn't have proof and a paper trail leading directly to him & his little buddies? As I understand them, that is what Police do, separate erroneous accusations from legitimate one through investigation.

All the answers are within you. Did you ACCUSE the perp of the crime or just believe he was a likely SUSPECT? If someone did the former... then that's a prime example of someone who is not concerned with facts in arriving at a conclusion.

TP: Am I wrong about this? Should accusations without proof not be made in the first place and if so, what are the Police supposed to do all day?

See above.

TP: As it relates to "conspiracy theories", until an accusation has been investigated, people are right to assume that the "weeding out" process of showing something illegitimate hasn't occurred.
3) Again you missed my point about Watergate, etc.

Watergate was not even something in your first post... so ya... it's pretty obvious I missed what was not there. But my point above is the same. There's a world of difference between a suspicion and conclusion based on scant or selective evidence. The proper way to deal with the unknown is to follow the all the evidence one can, develop a theory, and test it. One must all the time be mindful that they have no theory they are setting out to prove. At times we don't have access to all the evidence and we may have to add the predictability of character to the pot. Many certainly suspected back in mid-2002 that Bush was determined to invade Iraq based upon the weakness of his case. While this may raise red flags that Bush is not being honest, it's no insight or proof of Bush's REAL reasons. Without some actual leaks from insiders back in 02... we just don't know. It's not unreasonable in the face of such an official campaign to look for is some underlying themes that explain everything even if the official reasons are not stated. But while these themes are enlightening, one must still be careful in what one claims as fact.

TP: Clearly you think quite highly of your reasoning and deduction skills. It remains to be seen whether anyone else shares that lofty opinion. Oh well, I tried to educate you the best I could. Not my fault if you choose to remain in an ignorant and dismissive mindset.
My apologies if you find this insulting: Just calling it like I see it as politely as I can.

I only wish that after all you have written you made a point instead of misinterpreting what I wrote then running with it. I hope I cleared things up for you.

[leftofthedial]

33. yes, citizen

any view more extreme than whatever ulTRAX believes would be doubleplusungood.

[ulTRAX]

38. actually....

My Progressive beliefs are probably more extreme than most here. For example, I'm generally appalled by the failure of most here to even rethink our anti-democratic Constitution.

But this isn't about beliefs... it's about the losing sight of one's beliefs and seeing the world as black and white: what helps the cause or what hurts it.

[leftofthedial]

43. is this black or is it white?

I believe the Iraqis are justified in taking up arms against the occupiers. The bushgang's "coalition" is there illegally.

I believe mercenaries who join in the occupation are legitimate targets.

I believe the extreme brutality (desecrating bodies, overt celebration) exhibited by the Iraqis crossed the bounds of human decency.

I believe these views are neither extreme nor deserving of censorship by you or anyone else.

[ulTRAX]

56. we mostly agree

I'm not sure I posted this or not but I, too, believe the invasion to be illegal and immoral. There were other ways to bring "democracy" to the Mideast without and illegal war. We COULD have started with our so-called friends... Kuiwait... Qutar... etc. I also believe in principle that the Iraqi's have legitimate basis to resist the US occupation. It's pretty difficult for the US to expect to use force in international affairs and not expect the resistance to do the same... though one could hope they would take the moral high grond.... just as I constantly hope the Palestinians will take a lesson or two from Gandhi.

What blurs the moral clarity of this war is that I don't see either side with a monopoly of virtue. Leaving aside the matter of bitter Ba'athists, it's a clash of two irrational ideologies... arrogant, God-is-on-my-side imperialism on the part of Bush... and Islamic religious beliefs and/or nationalistic fervor on the part of some Iraqis. I, too, think the mutilation of the bodies was beyond the legal resistance. On some level everyone is responsible for controlling their own hatred.

If you're claiming I have called for any censorship... please show me where. I have called for some on the Left to reexamine their beliefs so not to fall down that slippery slope of extremist partisanship that places winning at all costs over principles. I would have thought that this was clear.

[leftofthedial]

64. who gets to decide

at what point a belief constitutes "extremist partisanship"?

I believe that extreme means are necessary to successfully defeat fascism and that doing so is a moral imperative.

I don't think DU'ers should pile in and whack the mercenaries' charred corpses with our own rhetorical shovels. That is clearly inhumane and counterproductive.

But saying that the mercenaries paid the price for the risks they willingly took is not extreme. Even being grudgingly glad that this event, as abhorent as it was, may hasten the disintegration of blind public support for this immoral war is not extreme.

[ulTRAX]

66. I think the line is crossed when...

leftofthedial wrote: "who gets to decide at what point a belief constitutes "extremist partisanship"?

I think the line is crossed when one starts to compromise what should be their own values or defend negative values, in order for their side to win. Let me change the example from the mercs to Nader.

I see this partisan extremism in the Democratic vehemence against Nader. Presumably anyone who actually values DEMOCRACY would welcome ALL to run and compete in the voting marketplace. They would want voters to have a chance to vote their conscience not the lesser of the evils. They would CLEARLY see that in the US the problem is not Nader... it's our dysfunctional electoral system, an anti-democratic Constitution, and the moral bankruptcy of the Democratic Party in failing to push for democratic reforms.

Yet what I often see here is the worst of both worlds... Nader bashing and cheering every obstacle in his path.... AND a refusal to deal with our dysfunctional electoral system and anti-democratic Constitution. What arrogance! Rather than face the failings of their own Party.... many Democrats believe they DESERVE all votes left of Bush.... that they don't have to EARN those votes.

Nader didn't cost Gore the election... all the antics in Florida and in the USSC would not have mattered EXCEPT for the EC. Yet 4 years later... the Democrats STILL lack the core values to push for the abolition of the EC. So they bash Nader. I personally think their actions are despicable.

[ulysses]

61. never mind...

[lapislzi]

41. It's called having a CONSCIENCE

And THINKING before we open our mouths or start pounding those keys. I can say the first mean-spirited thing that comes into my head, or I can think it through and actually say something constructive and intelligent. Which would you choose?

Besides, why ever would we want to stoop to their level?

[leftofthedial]

44. in the absence of a specific example

I don't know what you are talking about.

Mean-spirited or hateful speech is usually to be avoided, though may occasionally legitimately be necessary or useful.

This topic is about extremism, not hatred, though. I still wonder, who gets to decide what is "extreme"?

[lapislzi]

46. Example: remarks about the "civilians" killed in Faluja

People saying that they deserved what they got is mean-spirited, and, imo, extreme. No matter what you think of mercenaries.

I think hatred is always extreme, as is the use of violence. To paraphrase Confucius, "The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out."

You make a good point, however, about what's "extreme." To my moderate co-workers, I am extreme; to my progressive friends I am close to being "out there;" but on this board I'm pretty middle of the road.

[ulTRAX]

59. extreme politics vs rabid partisanship

lapislzi wrote: "You make a good point, however, about what's "extreme. To my moderate co-workers, I am extreme; to my progressive friends I am close to being "out there;" but on this board I'm pretty middle of the road.

I, too, am probably an "extremist" here.... at least within the accepted Left end of a narrow political spectrum in the US. I don't think my beliefs are extreme within the broader context of other advanced democracies.

I had hoped I made a clear in my first post that I make a distinction between politics and rabid partisanship. I was protesting those who place their principles on a back-burner and begin to find satisfaction in any bad news they feel hurts the other side. Not that I'm immune.... I do try to catch it when I see it happening.

[mmonk]

40. First, we don't deserve a quagmire

no matter how misled our public has been.

We need to work on solutions that civilized nations take. We need help concerning this mess.

[mouse7]

47. 4 poor schmucks paid for bad policy with their lives

I'm dead set against corporate mercenary armies, but I feel bad for the 4 poor guys who paid for a bad policy with their lives. I'm sure these guys weren't terribly sophisticated politically and had not read a stack of policy papers on these issues. The policy experts are supposed to generate the papers, the ethics experts chime in, and then society is supposed to weigh all these factors and make a reasoned decision regarding serious issues like Americans acting as soldiers-for-hire in a theater of conflict. This process totally broke down. The US did not analyze policy on these issues, and the poor bastards paid for that error with their lives.

[ulysses]

62. about that "loss of humanity" thing

Do tell. Does expressing indifference to the deaths of mercenaries who are in a war zone *by choice* equal a loss of humanity?

What of an indifference to the fate of *actual* innocents in the path of the war itself, as evidenced by those in the center who supported the war?

[ulTRAX]

68. loss of humanity

ulysses wrote: "about that "loss of humanity" thing. Do tell. Does expressing indifference to the deaths of mercenaries who are in a war zone *by choice* equal a loss of humanity?

My point is that there's a continuum... better still, a slippery slope from "I knew Bush was wrong invading Iraq" to "this disaster serves Bush right"... or further... "man, I hope today's news is bad". That's what I meant by a loss of humanity.

What greases this slide is extreme partisanship which begins to divide up the world into "what helps the cause" and "what hurts the cause". I believe by the time one reaches that last state they have crossed a line. But it can progress further. In it's MOST extreme we have the Hitlers and Stalins to whom the cause, whatever they have deluded themselves to believe it is, is more important than a few tens of millions lives. In those extremes, I see this creeping irrationality indistinguishable from psychosis. And no, I don't see the Left from being immune to such degeneration.

[amazona]

63. "does this hurt freaks?"

Your post reminds me of the Robert Anton Wilson story of how he was talking to a friend about the Manson family murders. His friend's comment on the case: "Does this hurt freaks?"

I agree with you to a certain extent...people get caught up on whether or not something hurts or helps the cause and sometimes forget what the cause really is.

But I don't think we can stand for censoring people's blogs. I don't see a problem with not linking to a blog if it's too off-message or potentially hurtful to family members of our troops. Nothing wrong with Kerry's site taking off the link to the supposedly offending blog. But I don't think we should go much further than that. People should have the right to express themselves in any legal fashion on their own site. I also think we have the right to have our own thoughts and if sometimes a less-than-noble thought pops into mind, it is not hurting anyone, it is just proof that we are humans and not members of some high-falutin' holy choir.