Elect McCain and the Terrorists Win
Since the 1970’s, we Americans have overwhelmingly identified terrorism with Middle Eastern Muslim extremism: the PLO, Hamas, Hezzbollah, and Al Queda. England had the IRA and we had our own Oklahoma City bombing, which was sort of half-heartedly referred to as terrorism, but whenever a public figure invokes the boogey man of terrorism, the image in our brain is an Arab.
But terrorism has a definition that has no ethic or religious affiliation:
ter-ror-ism (noun)
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroistric method of governing or resisting a government.
I’m especially interested in the first definition—the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes—because using the threat of terrorism to tamp down opposition to your policy agenda or to gin up enough hatred and fear to win an election are terrorist acts in and of themselves.
As Josh so eloquently put it yesterday, “[the American right] has not lost its telltale imperviousness to irony”, so I doubt that the McCain campaign understands that they are committing and condoning terrorism. And, I doubt that the Bush administration has been lamenting their use of fear-mongering to intimidate and coerce the electorate, except insomuch as they used the tactic one too many times and the public started clearly to see Peter where George Bush was still crying “wolf.”
So far, Republican terrorism has only extended to intimidation and coercion. No violent acts have been committed. No citizens have been harmed. But that could change in a sudden and destructive way. After all, it only takes a single suicide bomber to destroy lives and wreak chaos and fear.
I abhor terrorism and, even though I try to live my life as a pacifist, I would very much like to see Osama bin Laden brought to justice, wild west style. But at least when that man sees terrorism carried out as a result of his call, he understands that he and his ilk were the instigators. But what if something devastating happens as a direct result of the deep-seated hatred and anger that McCain and Palin have doused with gasoline?
The Republican party has always exhibited a classically paternalistic “do as I say, not as I do” attitude toward the citizenry, so I think it’s safe to say that the McCain/Palin campaign isn’t engaged in taking an honest look at the dangerous feelings they’ve been antagonizing over the past several days. They are concerned with the backlash, sure, but as Steve Schmidt, in a moment of rare honest, said, “We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.” Win at all costs, right Steve-O? But what if the cost is violence or loss of life? What then?
Yeah, right! And I'll bet Jim Jones was absolutely amazed when his followers actually drank the coolaid.
October 12, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain can't possibly be as ignorant as you would like to believe.
October 12, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe he's ignorant.
I believe that he and his camapign believes that they can say what they want, and then shrug their shoulders and deny any culpability when their supporters beging to behave like an angry mob.
And I believe he is incapable of seeing his own hypocrisy.
October 12, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I missed it yesterday, when you made the same point:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/10/whos-a-terrorist.php
October 12, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's OK. You are so much more eloquent than I. I appreciate your starting this. It will get more attention.
October 12, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose most people are like that when they've convinced themselves that they are qualified to to do everyone's thinking. They are somehow able to justify to themselves anything they do or say.
I am afraid that he's put enough subliminal messages out there that all it would take is the right word to set it off.
I absolutely agree with you that he is a terrorist but not by accident. I think he (or someone who advises him) has calculated every move.
October 12, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, bullseye. They've calculated what they are doing, just as the Bush administration has. I think they just have no idea of the irony that what they are doing amounts to terrorism by its standard definition.
October 12, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You heard McCain say he has some fundamental disagreements with Obama. That about sums it up.
What Obama believes and what McCain believes are different in the aspect of what outcomes will be produced by those beliefs. We know the outcomes that are produced by persons like McCain. We are now suffering the results of the way the McCains of the world think.
In effect McCain and many others have no clue of what they are doing. We have ample proof that Bush doesn't and we also know that Reagan was wrong. These are facts supported by their 'achievements'.
We need somebody with a brain running things. Someone who has a real education who knows how to do critical thinking. No more dumbasses.
October 12, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, maybe we have learned something after all. We only truly saw Bush and Reagan in retrospect. We recognize what McCain is in the light of the here and now.
Thanks. I feel much smarter now.
October 12, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
We? You got a mouse in your pocket.
October 12, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. I can only speak for myself. The truth is I never really cared one way or the other who got elected and maybe still don't. Maybe I've just had enough of the greed and hate that seems to be so pervasive in our society. Or maybe I'm just old and cranky and feel entitled to an opinion on those grounds alone. Who knows?
October 12, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Orlando, when you post something like this, you are no different than the Republicans. I know you won't understand why I say this, but it's related to my next comment below.
You are not a pacifist.
October 12, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say I was a pacifist. I said I try to be one.
And I am very different than the republicans, thank you very much. That's a ridiculous rhetorical comparison.
October 12, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to sound harsh, but you've become brainwashed by this site, Orlando. I remember when you used to be able to think for yourself, but this post is an example of how much you've changed since then. Although you'll think I'm writing this to be mean, I'm not. I'm saddened by your post.
Maybe you used to try to be a pacifist. But you are now advocating the worst side of being an American. "Pacifist" is not a word that should be used in the same sentence as "wild west style."
I must be more of a pacifist than you, because your flippant attitude makes me sick to my stomach.
Bye, Orlando.
October 12, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh get off your high horse, gasbag. You've never thought I could think for myself and you've never said anything that wasn't hypercritical. I don't think you do it to be mean. I don't think much about it full stop.
If I'm going to engage in an argument, i prefer to have a thoughtful, honest one.
October 12, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right, Orlando. Gasket does seem to be extra hard on you. It makes me wonder if that is because he respects you.
At any rate, his criticismwas a bit over the top. I marched against the war and abhor violence, but I wouldn't mind seeing Bin Laden in a zoo someplace. Maybe Washington, surrounded by the photos of the people he killed.
So I guess, i ain't no "real" pacifist, either.
October 12, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was being honest about all of what I said, Orlando. I used to think you could think for yourself. I used to think you were interesting, and I always looked for your avatar when you first started commenting at TPM.
But this particular post is exactly what Billy means when he calls TPM the Hive: You are regurgitating Josh Marshall, who has yanked everyone's chain. Josh is not eloquent, he's manipulative.
Am I on a high horse? Sure—as are you. As are most people on this site.
Am I hypercritical? Yes, when people spread propaganda. I hate propaganda.
In any case, pacifism begins with a commitment to nonviolent thinking. It's a really difficult position to maintain, because it is absolute. There are no exceptions, even for bin Laden. But don't take my word for it: read MLK and Gandhi.
October 12, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the lesson in pacifism. Believe it or not, I understand the concept and I understand the conflict with wanting bin Laden brought to ultimate justice.
As for quoting Josh, are you telling me that you believe the conservative moment understands and appreciates irony? Because judging from the words spewing from the mouths of their party leaders and surrogates, I don't see it.
As for leveling the charge of "groupthink", you are entitled to your opinion. However, I've been an Obama supporter since before he announced his intention to run, and I've been a liberal for a lot longer than that. So, don't lecture me on how I've changed.
You and Billy G. enjoy telling the rest of us that we're mindless drones, but you never provide any concrete examples or any evidence that you are not also a mindless drone, just of a different hive.
That's not intellecutal honesty. That's shaking the hive, and that, as you know, is kind of dumb.
With the exception of maybe two comments, all I've ever seen from you is criticism of others, sometimes fairly viscious. What is it exactly that you stand for?
October 12, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So is "ultimate justice" the same as "wild west style"? To me, "wild west style" is the same as George Bush's "Bring it on." I've personally had quite enough of "wild west style." It truly makes me sick to think about. But besides that, it hasn't produced the desired results, has it?
(P.S. I lived in NY during 9/11 and I have no need for payback as a form of "justice.")
I'm saying this: "Forget about differentiating between conservatives and liberals anymore, because Democrats are behaving exactly like Republicans now." There is no difference whatsoever. Democrats are attacking McCain's age, calling him unstable, erratic, bumbling, forgetful, etc. Highlighting his mistakes and pretending Obama doesn't make any gaffes. In sum, alluding to or using outright trigger words like "Alzheimer's," "dementia," "PTSD," etc. There is no basis for saying such things, and it's exactly like the right's attempt to paint Obama as a scary terrorist. The Democrats just don't see themselves clearly right now. They are warped.
As for Josh, the title of the post you linked to is, "They've Still Got the Sludge." Is that eloquence? I disagree. It's cheap. In the body of his post, Josh (yet again) takes a pseudo-pop-psychoanalytical approach to describing the "right," diagnosing paranoia and revanchism. Yes, revanchism. Reaching back to his history-major days, I guess. What a pompous academic! But far from qualifying as "eloquent."
I know you're been a longtime Obama supporter; however, this post is not about Hope or Yes We Can or Change. It's revanchist. You want revenge against Republicans and bin Laden. That's a tall order.
I don't happen to know what Billy enjoys. I don't think you're a mindless drone, that's why I objected to this post. All I can explain about my position is that I hate it when I can't tell the difference between a liberal site and a conservative one.
I guess you don't read me enough, Orlando. I get attacked and I defend myself. Why shouldn't I? Just like you, I don't enjoy being attacked. Then I get attacked for defending myself. Tedious.
I'm a Kucinich Democrat and I come to this site looking for some intelligent conversation, if that means anything to you. If it doesn't mean anything to you about what I "stand for," ask me something more specific.
October 12, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want revenge against republicans or bin Laden. I want justice. There's a difference...In bin Laden's case, to me that means finding him and killing him. If you object to the wild west imagery, especially in lieu of the last eight years with Cowboy Dumbass in the White House, I'm sorry. Perhaps the words were chosen poorly. (If you object to me calling him Cowboy Dumbass, too bad. He is.)
In the republicans' case, it means jail time. And I feel exactly the same way about democrats who break laws.
I also want the McCain campaign to stop the madness. Sarah Palin, who burst onto the scene six weeks ago and won't take questions, is telling America we don't know who Barack Obama is? Give me a break. And that's the tamest example of the rhetoric over the past week. The irony here is that Bush got relected in 2004 by scaring just over half of America silly with the "terrorists are gonna getcha" boogey man crap. Using the threat of terroism to coerce and manipulate citizens is terrorism in and of itself. That is the point here and the McCain campaign is using the same tactic.
As for the Obama campaign suggesting McCain is erratic, he didn't do so until McCain started acting erratic. I don't think it's got anything to do with age. The man said the fundamentals of the economy were strong on Monday morning, said we're in trouble on Monday afternoon, opposed the bailout on Tuesday, suspended his campaign to "rush" back to Washington and save the bailout on Thursday, spent Friday in New York doing speaking engagements, stormed into Washington and threw a wrench in the negotiations on Friday night, proclaimed success in saving the bailout on Monday, just before the house failed to pass the measure, after which he blamed Obama for the failure while saying now is the time for bipartisanship. Please explain to me about the universe in which that is not erratic behavior?
As for you, gasket, you may think that you only defend yourself, but even today I read comments where you attacked with no provocation. Maybe there is history with other posters. I don't know. But you're unkind here at TPM more frequently than you are kind, and maybe that's why you find that people react with some hostility to your remarks.
October 12, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
R(a)tbag... what are you adding to this conversation?
October 12, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Orlando.
I am wondering tho' if the Republicans really just believe they can direct/contain/be in charge of/etc the radical/violent element. They tend to deep down in their bones believe that all people/things should do/go as they say.
I know a lot of double wording, but I find it so hard to truly express what I see happening. Sorry to all that find it irritating.
October 12, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an interesting idea, lil. Maybe they do believe nothing disastrous will happen because they have control. They're not so great at subtext, so maybe they think if they don't actually say, "It's time to riot violently," that would never happen.
Certainly George Bush has shown a remarkable amount of this kind of delusion. Even in his speeches at the end of last week, he really seems to think that what he tells us to do will have some sort of impact.
October 12, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cynicism dominates Republican thinking. They have no interest in irony, which requires introspection. They will, by God, get the power and how they get it and the consequences of how they get it be damned. They'll blame any blowback on someone else.
October 12, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So it's not okay to call Ayers a terrorist but it is okay to call the GOP a terrorist organization?
Much of Hillary's late campaign was to fear monger among the white blue collar workers. Does that make her a terrorist also?
Organized crime uses threats and actual violence to get their aims done. Do we want to call these individuals terrorists?
The United States uses its military might to subdue other countries in it's own interests. Should we call our country a terrorist nation? (Noam Chomsky makes this explicit.)
I claim the more that words are devalued for shock value and political purposes, the more difficult it is to have an intelligent discussion. Orwell spoke of this extensively in his book, 1984.
Just a thought.
October 12, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is not okay to call Bill Ayers a terrorist? He was. He's not any more, but that doesn't excuse him for the acts he previously committed. However, he was never convicted of anything and he has certainly made himself useful in Chicago working on education reform. He's rehabilitated.
Terrorism goes further than fear-mongering. Terrorism is violence or the threat of violence. The frenzy that was whipped up this week at McCain/Palin rallies is scary. Not just because somebody might try to take on Obama's secret service detail. But because there are millions of Obama supporters living in communities that are outside of the blue states. These supporters are going door to door. They have yard signs and bumper stickers that declare their allegiance. What happens if a McCain supporter, so incensed at the thought of an Obama presidency, decides to vent his anger at one of those supporters in a violent manner?
How do you think Islamic fundamentalists whip up support? How do you think they convince people to kill themselves in the name of their cause? They incite.
And frankly, the United States doesn't have a lot of moral authority on the terrorism front. We're killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a prettied up name for it: collateral damage. But we're killing civilians. Which makes it a hell of a lot harder for the United States to condemn terrorist organizations for doing the same thing with any sort of moral high ground.
October 12, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about "Depression," smart guy?
Using that for "shock" value, huh?
October 12, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly I'm sick of this latest meme from the high and mighties that Liberals are as bad as conservatives.
That's a crock. We don't come close. It's disgusting to think that so called "fellow liberals" would get off on spouting such nonsense day after day after day.
The "hive" mentality I see around here is by those who look down their crooked elitist noses at the rest of us.
We "dumb bees" have been more correct about how things are and where they're going to go then ANY of these critics. $5.00 gas--any one? Obama lost the primary? Hello?
They can chew on THAT fact and maybe knock off this nasty and unproductive behavior. It's low class. Very low.
Now can we get back to the OP at hand, Orlando has a good point here, as usual the GOP is accusing their competition of what they are, in fact, practicing. Not a surprise, but certainly a new low.
October 12, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink