(Heidi and I are in Washington D.C. this weekend to celebrate our first anniversary)
Tomorrow, I’ll walk through the National Mall and stand upon the land where history, real history happened, where Martin Luther King spoke of dreams and John F. Kennedy asked us to give to our country, where thousands and thousands marched against war, where real democracy and fierce debates shaped our country and created hallowed ground.
Dissent and debate matter in this country. Every positive change in this country has been marked by both, from the elimination of slavery to the recognizing women’s right to vote. These are marks of a vibrant democracy and a vibrant public and civic life. Without those protests and marches, we would be a different country today.
So, on the way to the Mall tomorrow, I will look toward the White House with great sadness because it’s current inhabitant has not been a steward of this legacy. He does not believe in the debate and the raucous exchange of ideas that have shaped our country for so long.
I’m speaking of the Bush administration’s utter contempt for dissent and disagreement, of loyalty oaths and and fake “town halls” where only loyal Bushies are allowed to attend. I’m speaking of a President who hides from protesters lest he hear dissent.
Of all of his failings, and he has many, this has been the key one. After all, thin skin breeds defensiveness and stubbornness. Those feelings breed rigidity and limited thinking. That creates poor policy and bad judgement. His administration is, in other words, a case study in why dissent is important for the health of the nation.
I wrote nearly a year ago that we should look at the fraud of “bipartisanship”, that “we should reflect upon the past five years and examine our ‘bipartisanship’ moments on the most important issue of our time.” Looking out at Washington D.C. tonight, I ask that we also take a look at the President’s fraudulent patriotism.
Patriotism on the President’s terms have brought us Abu Ghraib. It has brought us horrible lies and more lies. We now may be looking at a resurgent al-Qaeda. Supporting the troops in the Bush administration meant Walter Reed. All because when citizens and officials stood up to question the President or his war plans, they were brushed aside and ignored in the name of patriotism.
Over the last 6 years, those of us that have disagreed with the President’s policies have been called anti-American, defeatists, and traitors. Some, like Sen. Joe Lieberman, vilified even the mere act of questioning the President. The President and his supporters have continually invoked the language of patriotism in defending their long-failed policies. They would like our patriotism to be blind, closing our eyes while biting our tongues, lest we “undermine the President.”
When the President and his supporters speak of patriotism, they are speaking of blind support for them and their failed policies. That’s not America. Real patriotism involves questioning our leaders, following the examples of Martin Luther King and millions of other protesters over the years. We should learn from the patriotism the thousands of brave individuals around the nation who try to line motorcade routes or stand outside Presidential appearances even in the face of aggressive policing by the Administration. Real patriotism isn’t blind or obsequious. Real patriotism can involve dissent, which is the real tradition that binds us all together.






July 29th, 2007 at 10:17 am
You’ve got to be kidding me. Talk about one sided. There are those of us who don’t like the way the war is being conducted, but your side and folks on our side have been doing plenty of debating, and there have been plenty of rallies against the war. Give me a break… you talk as if the rallies are somehow being thrawted by Republicans. The only rallies that should be thrawted are the jackasses that go to the funerals of soldiers and act up… not too many conservatives doing that, thank God.
Tell me, does you heart just bleed for those Abu Ghraib (where terrorists are held for our protection) or mourn the thousand murdered at the hands of Islamic fundementalism? Sorry, which post of yours condemns them?
Get a clue. Do you actually think Al-Queda was ever going to lay down their arms? What’s your braniac solution, when its seems no one has one. Yeah, we defended ourselves and we look to keep defending ourselves or face an onslaught of attacks.
So, while you and Heidi are wandering around wishing for Martin Luther King and JFK, and civil rights… maybe you can break from wallowing self-serving despair and spend a few minutes thinking about what kind of abuses that the people in Iraq, Iran, and Afganistan have endured under the Taliban and others. Those people have dreams too. Dreams about having freedom … a little more basic than MLKs.
Stop whining about Bush. You sound like a dolt. We are up to our ears in crap from Clinton, Edwards and Obama… no content. This is going to be a **itty election for both sides. The are all ZEROS.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Welcome to FatMixx, TK. Wondering when you were going to swing by.
Couple of pieces of advice: you’ll find that your comments are taken more seriously by those of us that read here if you avoid the name calling and non-sequiturs. After all, if you can’t respect the writer, why should they respect your opinion?
That being said, your comment is a bit off from what I was writing. After all, I wrote a post about the president and his lack of respect for dissenting voices. I didn’t claim that Republicans were thwarting anything, or that there weren’t protests. Indeed, the second link in my post is to a Wikipedia page about the largest anti-war protest since Vietnam. It was against this war.
I guess you missed the part where I listed out specific acts I felt were beneath the legacy of those that led out country to where we are. Hiding from protesters by creating “free speech zones” out of sight of motorcades and presidential events is pathetic. Surely, you don’t believe that Mayor Slifka should’ve cordoned off the WHTA folks or limited their access to the town meetings, do you?
Second, you asked whether I only worry about those at Abu Ghraib or whether I worry about terrorism victims. This is a false choice. One can fight barbarism without resorting to it. If your only defense is, well, “we’re not worse than them,” you’ve conceded that you’re doing something wrong.
Third, instead of asking me for my “brainiac” plan, why don’t you look at the candidates’ web sites? The Democratic candidates have proffered a variety of plans with different ways of extricating our troops from harms way while attempting to mitigate the damage President Bush did to Iraq and Iraqis by going in half-assed.
The leading Republicans, in contrast, offer the Bush plan and little else. It’s embarrassing, quite frankly, that none of the leading candidates can offer anything else. Talk about no content. The Republicans can’t even handle the CNN/YouTube debates…
Finally, your entire comment reeks of what I spoke about above… You have implied that I don’t care about our collective safety, as if my family isn’t also facing the same threat as everyone else, and that I somehow sympathize with our enemies, essentially hinting at sedition or that I’m a traitor.
That’s pathetic and quite frankly beneath all of us.
Look, we can disagree on policy. Not everyone needs to agree on every policy choice. Your comment, however, has no substance and instead goes out of its way to attack me personally… what’s the point of that? What is attacking me going to do for you? It if makes you feel good, rock on. I can take it, but you really should think about what it says about you.
One reconciliatory thought: If you would like to seriously debate the merits of different Iraq policy, or anti-terrorism policy, bring it on. I would love to talk about stuff like that. I would begin that discussion with these two points:
1. We didn’t “defend ourselves” by going into Iraq. They had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD, and we had a robust inspection process going on at the time we invaded. Instead, we should’ve finished the job in Afghanistan. Put another way, how can one call successful a policy that has allowed a surge in Taliban activity and the reconsitution of al-Qaeda to pre-9/11 strenght.
2. We’re not fighting “al-qaeda” over there, but a number of different groups, some sectarian, some wahhabist, some affiliated with Iran or with bin Laden’s al-Qaeda. Acting as if they’re one homogenous threat robs us of a potential advantage, and we should stop doing that. Excellent post at TPM that covers this ground: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015927.php
Examining the roots of the Iraq War, I’d recommend Assassin’s Gate, which I’m mostly finished with, and Plan of Attack and Against all Enemies. Plan of Attack is taken directly from interviews with the President and key White House staff. Fascinating read, and lends a lot of weight to the theory that the President wanted to go into Iraq long before 9/11.
Sujal
July 30th, 2007 at 12:22 am
PS. Did you ever approve my comment on your blog? Or is censorship still in effect at The King’s View?
I still can’t believe you called Capt. Janeway a “fema-nazi”… talk about taking fiction too seriously and on top of that using a loaded slur. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi .
Oh, and that’s the preferred spelling. If you’re going to use a slur, you might as well get it right.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Sujul:
I think you do a bit of name calling in your own posts (whether its “characterization” or not is just a cover.
1. Bush and dissent. First, how do you really know what Bush thinks about dissent? You claim “utter contempt” so who’s your inside source? Look you make stretches like we all do, so lay off the whistle. Look at the friendly environments that Hillary debates in, give me break, they all work in safe havens. Bill Clinton used to get very upset when dissenters snuck in. Very upset.
2. We are indeed fighting Al-Queda over there. My source, several officers serving in various locations in Afganistan and Iraq, and elsewhere, some related, some good friends. I can’t change your mind on this one, but I’m comfortable with my position. That doesn’t mean we aren’t fighting other groups, btw.
3. Your assertion that the Taliban is stronger is false. Who’s to say that that they would have weakened if we simply walked away? Perhaps they would have become even more courageous if they saw victory and us on the run. I don’t follow your crystal ball. Seems a stretch.
3. Obviously we have different notions of what “defend ourselves” means. Premptive or not, Saddam is out, and dead. He was a threat to the region. Bad information led to his death. Iraq is struggling through hardships. I hope they can pull off a Republic of some sort.
4. Abu Prison. Hard to feel something for these people. Guess your more a bleeding heart than I. No one cried for Rudolf Hess either. And he was seeking peace with Britain, yet he sat alone in Spandau for decades until his murder. (I don’t buy into his suicide). Point being, we all suffer consequences for being on the wrong side at the wrong time. These guys are the enemy. It’s hard to let them go when they would rejoin their friends to plot and murder westerners (by their own admission).
5. Janeway: Who cares. She’s a fictional character. She made nasty comments about Kirk and Sulu. I can’t stand her. The show lacked spark. It was like the old , Battlestar Galactica lost in the Delta Quadrant. And no, your conclusion that I was “brought up” during Trek TOS’s original airing. Do I smell age discrimination in your comment… if I’m this then I must be that. Stretching a bit?
6. If I was really interested in getting every word, spelling, grammar, phrase or writing style 100% correct, I’d give it to an editor to help me write a book. Jesh, professor. Just take 10 points off for spelling.
7. A lot of what I write is in jest. You tend to hang on every word. You must be a riot to be around.
8. Censorship is in order when I’m personally attacked. Writing “WTF is wrong with you” probably doesn’t merit publishing. I refer you to your own comments about insulting authors and seeking respect.
Look forward to the next round
\
July 31st, 2007 at 10:15 pm
And not that I’m a fan of Rudolf Hess. I’d hate to have you think that I somehow support his ideology. But I tend to see what happened to him, and what’s already happened to the factual record as being TYPICAL of governments everywhere. Even Churchill felt that keeping him in prison. We may never know how he died, it was ruled suicide, and his file is closed until 2016. And the file has already been tampered with.
What’s the point? Hess was punished for being a symbol of what he believed. These guys in Abu are the same. Perhaps, they might be released, unlike Hess, who was never going to leave those prison walls alive. He would have been a threat everywhere he went - recruting, inciting passions, acting as a reminder, being the symbol of everything the allies tried to undue in Germany. After 40 years of work, Rudolf Hess was not going to muck up years of sacrafice in lives, hard work and all that it took to rebuild a democratic Germany. And these guys in Abu, they are going to sit there until their own society rejects them. Sorry, that’s the way it will probably be. And if they are released, they may find themselves in the hands of someone far worse. So there you have it. Wrong place, wrong time. Fair? Depends on your view.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:51 pm
I had a longer response here… but I’m pulling it because it’s not pointful. We disagree. This blog stands as my response. For the readers that come along later and read TK’s comments, I offer the following links:
On Taliban Strength: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/18/AR2007071801208_pf.html (a google search will find more, I don’t have time right now to pull more)
On Abu Ghraib: These kind of stories are evil and our country shouldn’t be involved in them: http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/20/evidence_for_hershs_.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/americas/19canada.html?ex=1316318400&en=f1496d527bec4121&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
On dissent… I listed what actions his administration has taken that go beyond the pale. that’s what I’m judging on, and that is all I can judge on… I can’t help but note that you don’t seem to ever address those points…
Finally, TK: You’re right, I wrote “WTF is wrong with you”. It probably wasn’t productive to say it, so I’m sorry.
It was just seeing you use a slur because a fictional character insulted two other fictional characters seemed pretty ridiculous. I was writing off the cuff, so sorry about that.
Sujal
August 1st, 2007 at 12:07 am
One further link: if, like me, you had to do some reading on Rudolf Hess to see if his case was comparable or relevant, here’s his Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hess
Maher Arar seems like a different situation to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
And here’s Wikipedia on Abu Ghraib in particular:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse