Osama’s victory…
I am a liberal. Therefore:
1. I am a slandering liar.
2. I am a traitor.
3. I do not support the troops.
4. I am “obsessed” with ousting the Commander in Chief.
5. I want to destroy marriage.
6. I hate America and George Bush.
7. I want to tax and spend us into socialism.
8. I hate Christians.
9. I hate free enterprise.
10. I love the liberal media establishment.
11. I am unpatriotic.
12. I am objectively pro terrorist (formerly pro Saddam).
It has become cliche to say that on 9/11/2001 Americans, and much of the civilized world, found unity in a great catastrophe. So many of us felt that way, and thought that way, that it must have been true on some level. On 9/11/2004, that unity has vanished like so much smoke on the wind.
While anyone who reads this weblog can plainly see that I have a political point of view, I have always tried to remain above partisanship, i.e. promoting my own political point of view and party despite the circumstances or the facts. I do not owe this to my readers; I owe this to myself because I adhere to an ideology that has been stronger for me than political ideology: academic ideology, i.e. the desire to understand the world and describe it as faithfully as I can based on academic ways of understanding. (And, as many of you know, that means Rhetorica isn’t as scintillating to read as the partisan weblogs.)
On this 9/11 anniversary, I am finding it increasingly difficult to remain non-partisan. I live in what’s been called the whitest city in America. I am outnumbered politically to an extent that was impossible to imagine just a few weeks ago. I am, according to those who outnumber me, all of those things I listed above and so much more.
What can 9/11 possibly mean to me in such a political environment?
(And, yes, many conservatives find themselves in equally hostile environments characterized in equally simplistic ways.)
Osama bin Laden knocked down two big buildings and killed many innocent people. But that is only part of the damage he caused. We may look back one day soon and realize that we lost the war the very day it began. Knocking down two buildings is nothing compared to dividing a house against itself.
Despite how I feel today, I promise to continue resisting that division on Rhetorica.
In a strong America, liberal and conservative alike could deal with the implications bin Laden’s victory. There certainly would not be agreement on what it means or what we should do about it. But there would be an acceptance that the concerns of two main factions are legitimate. And in a strong America, we the people would work together as best we can to deny bin Laden his greatest victory.
Jeez, Doc, I don’t know what’s going on down there, but I will offer this phrase that we gave each other back in the olden days (l960’s) to encourage, reinforce and comfort each other: noli nothis permittere te terere, or illigitimi non corborundum, either way, don’t let the bastards get you down.
Nothing to See Here – Three Years Later edition
9/11 Remembrances: At Buzz Machine, Jeff Jarvis, who was in the WTCon 9/11, remembers that America had a middle once.
Here’s the voice of someone else, tired of being in the crossfire, who was feet away from the attacks of 9/11/01: http://buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_09_11.html
I’ve recently changed the way I tack — moving more partisan. I think I realized it last Tuesday when I voted in our primary election. I was grateful that I didn’t see any GOP names on my ballot. I’m still trying to figure out what’s led me here.
I recently became an official volunteer for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Thank Zell Miller for that. I decided in an instant. Seeing the Zell On Earth anger and the way it charged the room (like a Dean rally). I will not wake up on November 3rd, look in the mirror and ask myself “What else could I have done?”. I will not.
Ironically, John McCain’s speech at the same convention accurately reflected one of my sentiments — we are at war, but not with one another. The next night Zell Miller rips John Kerry’s face off in primetime.
In the recent past, I’ve really tried to understand both sides. I never intended or dreamed that I could “convert” anyone to my liberal view. I’ll admit, I “feel” my political belief — and I spend a lot of time attempting to rationalize my dogma in order to defend myself against the conservatives that surround me.
Frankly, I’m getting tired of it.
Michelle Shocked says “You can’t always find politics with your intellect, because you get tricked by propaganda or dogma. But you can feel the difference between a politic of the intellect, and a politic that swings, that is about the feet and the heart, that is about involvement.”
What
Dr C;
Just to let you know, here in China the Goverment here Remembered 9/11 with a moment of Silence. And the news agencies aired stories all day. The world does remember, we may not have the unity, that we had 3 years ago but the World does remember.
I appreciate Professor Cline’s effort to remain “above the fray” and to try to present the world as it is. And while maybe the rhetoric does not provide the frisson that the partisan blogs do, it’s great to have a blog that aims to enlighten rather than just providing a forum sound off however irrationally. To me, this is the way that I think the world should be explained.
I honestly think that the media has played some (perhaps a large) role in creating the environment we live in today. Not through bias but through an inability to make an admittedly complicated world more understandable to the average person. There’s a lot of reasons for this that I can think of, but the very nature of the media (even “serious” media)today seems aimed more at stimulating the visceral and emotional rather than the thoughtful (and I realize that there is nothing invalid about the visceral and emotional but it seems to have gone too far.)
Yes, Andy, me too.
Get a grip! Nothing on this score was changed by the events of September 11, 2001. Rush Limbaugh and Pat Buchanan were with us before that day.
Throwing mud at your political adversaries has a long, long tradition in the U.S. For as long as I can remember (back to the late sixties), the left has dominated academia with very few exceptions (Pepperdine University, University of Chicago econ. department). The left has dominated Hollywood to the extent that movies touching on politics and social issues are made. The right has always been a more grass-roots affair, and as the radio people will tell you, no mass medium is better placed to serve a particular audience.
Are the charges you listed hyperbole, over-the-top? Yes.
Has the left not been equally guilty of hyperbole in its criticism of President Bush, Dick Cheyney, Newt Gingrich and other conservative/Republican public figures?
Were any of them more civil and responsible on September 10, 2001 than today? Not from where I see it.
“What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done;
there is nothing new under the sun.”
Ecclesiastes, Chapter 1, verse 9, King James Version
Hm. With respect to Mr. Knell, who is certainly right that calling one’s political opposition traitorous has a long, forgotten history, I think that your own experiences count for something. If you have felt attacked more now than four years ago, it may well be true.
I have no actual analysis of whether there is or isn’t a major psychological change, or what contributed to it if it exists, but I will say that it seems to me that a major undercurrent of casual political discussion just now is a sense that everything you value is under attack. Whoever ‘you’ are. The right, the left, the middle. The apathetic. Everybody feels that they and their lives are at risk. The institution of marriage is at risk. Freedom of speech is at risk. Our teenagers are at risk of the draft. Our paychecks are at risk from the tax man. Our pensions are at risk from the stockbroker. Our minds are at risk from the ‘media’ who want to brainwash us, or corrupt us, or bankrupt us.
All of this is true, to some extent or other, but by putting that fear at the center of our lives, we react with hostility
The sky is falling!
Charles…
I detect in some of the post-9/11 discourse–mostly from the right but also from the left–increasing attempts to delegitimize the opposition. This has always been SOP to a certain extent. I think it’s getting worse. I may be wrong.
I detect in some of the post-9/11 discourse–mostly from the right but also from the left–increasing attempts to delegitimize the opposition.
Why do you think it’s “mostly from the right”? Honestly, I think it’s about even. Take a stroll through Democratic Underground or Indymedia sometime to get a flavor of what kind of delegitimizing goes on with left-wing types.
Basically, the two arguments go like this:
If you’re right and they’re left: They’re immoral, un-patriotic big-gov. conspiracy theorists bent on taking away your guns.
If you’re left and they’re right: They’re extremist zealots who hide behind the flag to invade your bedroom and taking away your civil rights.
Pretty well sums it up right there. FWIW, I find there are reasonable people I can converse with who differ with me politically – as long as we can agree that there’s a common ground to discuss. If I’m a simpleton who’s been hoodwinked for disagreeing with someone (which seems to be the dominant belief among some liberal authors e.g. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805073396/qid=1095109214/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ksr_1/103-9551776-1734237?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 ), then there’s not much to discuss.
Bryan… well, I stepped into that one, didn’t I?
I have no short answer, so perhaps I need to work up a blog entry on it. I’ve long been among the “about even” crowd, too, so I admit that what I’m *feeling* right may be getting the better of what I’m *thinking.*
That said, I think I can at the very least make a case that the two sides delegitimize in different ways and that the right is “better” at it.
Okay…let me work on it.
That said, I think I can at the very least make a case that the two sides delegitimize in different ways and that the right is “better” at it.
I’ll grant that they use different arguments to delegitimize, and the right has an advantage in the territory they stake out.
I await your post with baited breath.
I think that much of the demonization comes from each side feeling that it is beseiged. Conservatives, despite controlling the government, think that they are beseiged by a liberal media and cultural establishment. Liberals think they are beseigned by “a vast right-wing conspiracy” consisting of the religious right and corporations. The feeling of victimization is enhanced by the fact that, on some visceral cultural(abortion, homosexuality)and foreign policy issues, the differences are so great that each election is perceived as high stakes. If you read blogs and periodicals from both sides, its amazing how much mirror imaging exists.
MWS… I wish I had said that as part of the original post.