It is often said, as a way of proving that the Democrats are no different from the Republicans: "The Democrats voted for war, they funded war, they voted for the Patriot Act... They are not different; they are the same. Hoping they will be different is unrealistic and foolish." That's a direct quote from a comment on one of my recent essays in which I argued that the Democrats' newly one power in Congress is an absolutely essential weapon of ours in the battle against the Bushite evil. But one hears variations on that argument all the time.
And I just have to scratch my head and ask: When the Democrats do these things --and I acknowledge that they've done often done such things since 2002-- can't you see that they are not doing them for the same reasons as the Bushites?
Can't you see that the field of forces in which these people are operating compels them to go directions that they'd prefer not to go? I mean it "compels" them, assuming we grant their priorities, which is to survive politically.
I prefer "Profiles in Courage" to the pursuit of that priority-- believe me I do. Having grown up in the 1950s with the image of noble men doing noble things-- protecting the weak by putting their lives on the line, never cowtowing to any evil power, never putting self-advancement ahead of doing the right and true and noble and heroic thing, protecting the weak, even at the risk of one's life-I've always thought that's how a man is supposed to act. (For the two and a half years since I perceived how dark is the threat from the Bushites to everything I hold sacred, I myself have been exerting myself all-out, full-time, for no pay, to help defeat this Bushite evil by speaking moral truth to amoral power.)
MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT HEROES
But it turns out that most people aren't heroes. They may enjoy identifying with those heroes of the Western movies, but they are not all that invested in acting like them when the chips are down. For every Marshall Kane (the Gary Cooper character in High Noon), there's a whole churchful of townsmen who don't want to get involved, and don't want to get shot at, and don't want to get onto the wrong side of Miller and his gang when they take the town over again (over Kane's dead body, which they are likely to do), and maybe even don't entirely mind the idea that their town will become a den of iniquity, so long as business is good.
Haven't you seen the same thing in every organization you've ever worked in? Have you noticed how people will keep their heads down and keep their mouths shut when it matters? A few may say something supportive to the one who speaks out-but only privately, where there's no danger. Their heart may be in the right place, but it's not the heart of a lion. They don't want to risk their own security.
Why should we expect that our elected representatives will be any different? A few heroes maybe. But why should we expect otherwise than that most politicians will be like the people one generally sees in the world-like the townsmen, not Marshall Kane. Like the farmers, not Shane?
So in the fall of 2002, these Democrats --who mostly are not heroes-- faced a field of forces from the Bushites that they read, not unreasonably, as confronting them with the choice between voting as the Bushites demanded or committing possible political suicide.
It was very clear to me then how the Bushites were able to manipulate the media and the public so that the Democrats were able to plausibly believe that if they failed to support this very popular "war president," they would cut their own throats in the elections to come.
It was not foolish for the Democrats to believe that if they acted "wimpy" in contrast with the supposed strength and courage and resolve of our "war President" (and that's how most of the American people then saw him), that if they acted unpatriotic at a time when everybody is showing the flag and a lot of people's vehicles are sporting a bumper-sticker that says "The Power of Pride" over Old Glory while the Bushites were being our supposed great protectors and defenders of "freedom" and the glories of the American chest-thumping way of life, that the Bushites would crucify them in elections as far as the eye could see.
SAME ACTION, WHOLLY DIFFERENT MEANING
Could you not see that when someone like John Kerry voted for the authorization of the use of force IT HAD A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MEANING than when the likes of Bush and Cheney and Rove and Rumsfeld and Tom Delay worked to drive the country into this war?
For those Bushites, it was all about POWER-- about the assertion of pure might to humiliate their enemies, to command the field, to impose their will upon everyone, to march toward domination of everything.
For Kerry, and most of the Democrats who voted for the Patriotic and Strong thing, for the Defending America from Those Who Would Destroy Us-- for Kerry and most of the others it was not about power but about SURVIVAL.
There's absolutely no way that a Kerry administration had it been in power in 2001-2204, would have taken us to war in Iraq. Indeed, I would wager heavily that no other administration in our lifetime would have taken us into that war, and certainly not into that war THAT WAY.
Andrew Bard Schmookler's website www.nonesoblind.org is devoted to understanding the roots of America's present moral crisis and the means by which the urgent challenge of this dangerous moment can be met. Dr. Schmookler is also the author of such books as The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution (SUNY Press) and Debating the Good Society: A Quest to Bridge America's Moral Divide (M.I.T. Press). He also conducts regular talk-radio conversations in both red and blue states.
people died. Lots of them. About 650000 to be exact.
Once when Khrushev was telling about Stalin's atrocities he got an anonymous note from the audience which asked him if that was true how did he and others let it to happen. He asked the author to reveal himself and when that did not happen he said,'You are afraid. We were afraid too.' But people died. Khrushev, of course was more honest than our Dems: he risked his very life many times. Still, the explanation though plausible is not morally acceptable.
The explanation of the fear by the person or a group of persons responsible for life and death is not morally acceptable. Those who voted for that resolution had legitimate power and means to fight against it. They were given that power by the people, by the very seats they occupied. It was their job to overcome all those fears and fight for the just cause. All the reasons Andy gives in his article are not the just reasons- those are the everyday tumults of any politics, an environment of the professional politician. They blew it. They knew where it was going. The Congress mechanism, the media and all was in their disposal to rise this issue to high Heaven, to throw thorns on every corner, to raise cane on every step, to declare an emergency situation, in short- to fight. They might lose. But it would be a real fight and there still was a chance for the people not to die. People died. Lots of them. Their blood is on the hands of those who had means to stop that carnage and they washed their hands and let it go. The Electorate has nothing to do with that particular aspect. Our Electorate sent those people to Congress to do their job. They did not do it. People died. End of the story.
by
Mark Sashine (55 articles, 19 quicklinks, 256 diaries, 3703 comments)
on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 12:10:52 PM
I entirely agree that it is not morally acceptable. I myself have NEVER given myself permission to do chicken out of doing what I knew to be right. And for almost forty years, I have been paying a steep price in almost every "currency" you can imagine. And I would not have done it any differently. Cowardice in the face of power that should be opposed is not morally acceptable.
But that is hardly the end of the story. The reality is that most people do not stand up to Stalin, or to the Miller Gang in High Noon, or even to the powers that be with your average American institutional employer.
Therefore we need to be able to judge the stories of those who are not among the few brave and righteous folks.
On the thread for this piece today on my own website, one reader challenged me, asking why the cowardice of the Dems makes them any better than the power-lust of the Bushites.
And I replied:
"Is it really difficult to discern what crucial difference there is between someone who goes along with evil for fear of being killed (figuratively speaking, in this case) and someone who gladly does evil because that is what is in his heart to do?
"The latter will do evil even when there is an easy and viable choice to do good. The former will do good when the choice to do good is easy and viable.
"One might well prefer having someone who will do good even at great personal cost. That's why we celebrate heroes.
"But if heroes are indeed rare, we should not be surprised when we find ourselves compelled to choose between the more decent but cowardly and the downright evil."
End of story suggests an end to thinking, once that moral condemnation of yours has been handed down. An end to thinking would mean being disabled from choosing among such options as we all-too-often, and regrettably, have.
Being thus disabled is not morally acceptable, because the story of the world's unfolding goes on, and those who refuse to make the best of the material that is at hand unwittingly contribute to that story's unfoldingly badly.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (321 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 2:44:33 PM
It's a matter of seeing them as the most important tool that we have for defeating the fascist forces that have lately taken over this country.
This is a contest of power. The Bushite forces are not going to be defeated by mere words, nor by any third party movement. Nor is America remotely ripe for revolution. If they are to be defeated, they will be defeated by legally constituted authority-- the Congress, the Courts, the voters choosing among the two main parties.
I cannot see any other routes to victory over the Bushites.
If I am coming down hard on the leftist refusal to face what seems to me to be reality, on their preference for purity over actual results, it is because I am dedicated to doing everything I can to seeing that we marshall our forces effectively to save our constitutional democracy, and I therefore wish to disabuse people of what I regard as illusions that dissipate our powers.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (321 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 7:39:23 PM
It's the Democrats war to deal with now. They can either shut it down or follow Bush's folly like their predecessors.
I don't believe there are any viable excuses for past behavior. The Dems joined the Republicans in rushing the country into a war that has had tragic consequences both in the US and Iraq.
With power comes responsibility. The Dems must bring an end to our national shame.
by
Kathlyn Stone (44 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 685 comments)
on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 3:57:23 PM
would you really give a sh*t why the Dems voted as they did?
I wouldn't. And I WOULD be planning to take Bush out, personally.
The door has always been open for people to speak out. That's why 10 million people marched in the streets, even elementary school children opposed the war, many knowledgeable writers, such as Scott Ritter, told us how stupid it was. Hans Blix said there were no WMDs and Hussein was willing to give him more time. Only George and Dick were in a hurry, and a few hundred limp noodles posing as politicians simply went along for the bloody, unfathomably costly ride.
The only question now is whether we'll support the real leaders and do everything in our power to cut off war funding in the April vote, which would bring the troops home promptly. It's time to get phone numbers taped to computers, get letters rolling, and stop this fatal hemmoraging of both our country and Iraq.
If anyone is still not sure who the leaders are, may I suggest you start with this one who spoke out even in 2002? (My apologies for the redundancy if you've seen my similar comment elsewhere.) Why is it that this one person had the spine to stand up when others didn't? Simple enough, he thinks things through, then backs his thoughts with actions.
It is this same bona fide leader who is pushing to cut off war funding bring the troops home NOW.
Are we ready to support him this time? Or will we keep bullshitting ourselves about political games, as we remain as blind as ever?
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 80 quicklinks, 125 diaries, 775 comments)
on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 7:16:31 PM
To those here who have made strong note of the terrible consequences of this war:
Whatever are the evils that have been done, are we not obliged to ask ourselves, By what means are we most likely to succeed in stopping future evils from being committed?
And if the answer to that question, as I believe, that 1)it is essential to wrest power from the Bushite regime and the forces behind it, and 2) the opposition party, as sorry as it is, is the best available instrument for achieving that, then even some of the people who, out of cowardice, acquiesced in evil may well be altogether necessary for the achievement of our essential goal.
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (321 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 7:52:36 PM
Which is why we need to get behind Dennis Kucinich, and make it clear that HE IS THE ONE who has the potential to transform the Democratic Party into what it claims to be.
P.S. I should have 2,000+ Kucinich bumper stickers in less than two weeks, for those who would like to reiterate this point as they drive around burning fossil fuels. They'll be free, on a first come, first served basis, to anyone who sends me a self-addressed stamped envelope. Donations not necessary, but even a dollar or two will go toward purchasing the next batch of them. (Daniel Geery, 1987 S. McClelland St., SLC UT 84015)
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 80 quicklinks, 125 diaries, 775 comments)
on Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 8:47:31 PM
is between voting for fascists or voting for cowards?
Because we only have two parties, the Republicans are fascists, so the only party organized and powerful enough to remove fascists is the Democratic party of cowards?
Gosh, I hate to break it to you, Andy, but never in history has a coward stood up to a fascist. Cowards, by definition, don't do things like that. If the Democrats win the presidency and huge majorities in both houses, the defense-industrial complex will still tell them what to do, and because they are cowards, they will do as they're told.
The last time the Democrats had a majority in Congress, they could have blocked Bush from taking office, or at least made it a lot harder for him. But the head coward, Gore, conceded, and he ordered his colleagues in cowardice to ignore the disenfranchised Democratic voters in Florida, ignore the Democratic Congressional Black Caucus, and ignore the good of the country, so as to "avoid civil unrest." Meaning that if he stood up to Bush, he'd have to fight, and cowards never stand up to bullies.
Sure Kucinich is a good guy. But backed by a party of cowards, what do you expect him to accomplish if elected President? You're using the Cheney/Rumsfeld argument that you don't go to war with the army you want, you go with the army you have. The only problem with that argument is that you don't win any wars that way. If the army you have is understaffed and underequipped, and you want to win, you turn to unconventional warfare. Of course if all you want is multi-billion dollar no-bid defense contracts, then you never really wanted to win, as a win would cut short the war-profiteering bonanza.
I'm not buying your story about the poor timid little Democrats being scared of the big bad Republicans. Not while the Democrats have been accepting donations from the defense-industrial complex, they or members of their families own or own controlling interests in defense-industrial corporations, and their portfolios and war chests have become obscenely swollen with war profits.
The corrupt two-party system is never going to change, no matter which party is in control. Neither fascists nor cowards have any right to lead this country. This is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And the only way it can be so is if we get rid of the corrupt two-party system and elect people strong enough, courageous enough, and intelligent enough to run this country on our behalf in the manner in which we tell them to. Who did you think they were supposed to be representing, their rich daddies?
You and Rob keep saying that if things were different, if we had instant runoff voting, honest elections, and different circumstances, then maybe we could vote our consciences, because right now we have no choice but to vote for either the fascists or the cowards.
Many of us believe that we have a choice and we have been voting our consciences all along and will continue to do so. The only think you can convince us of with your snivelling, is that you don't happen to have a conscience. We do, and we aren't waiting around for things to change, we're changing them. If you can't stand up for your beliefs and principles, you'll continue to vote for representatives who can't either. And you'll keep making excuses for them, because that's how you make excuses for yourself.
Someday Andy, both you and Rob are going to leave the dark side and come over to where people are strong, free, and bold. Where people are leaders, not followers. Where people work for change instead of just wishing for it. And we're going to pretend that you were with us all along, because we're forgiving and compassionate. And we'll probably even make excuses for you to our children, so that they don't think of you with scorn and contempt. But you know and everyone else knows that there's there's no difference between the fascist Republicans and the Vichy collaborating Democrats. The former are evil, and the latter are just subservient to evil out of cowardice? It takes more than cowardice to submit to evil. It takes a total lack of conscience. Even a coward will stand up for their rights and their country when their back is to the wall.
Shame on you for telling people that they don't have a choice. Who are you to tell people what their choices are? Who are you to decide for them that the corrupt two-party system is immortal and undefeatable, so they have to limit their votes to the greater or lesser evil? In Venezuela the corrupt two-party system was defeated. It will be defeated here too, sooner or later, if it doesn't destroy us first. You are not doing yourself, your fellow citizens, your country, or the world any good by perpetuating it.
I hope that you and Rob take a clue from Rob's positive psychology. Things can be better. We can make them better. We can start by doing what we know is right, each of us, one person at a time. Just because you think that the situation is hopeless, doesn't mean you have the right to try to convince everyone else of something that negative.
Maybe things really are hopeless. Maybe we won't be able to make things better. But some of us are going to die knowing that at least we tried, and some are going to die knowing that they were afraid to stick their necks out. You have a choice. And so does everyone else. It is a precious gift and not to be discarded lightly. Use it well.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 12:01:53 AM
"Gosh, I hate to break it to you, Andy, but never in history has a coward stood up to a fascist."
I suppose that's true by definition, since someone who stands up to someone else might thereby prove himself not a coward. But other than the tautological way it's true, I'm not sure just how thoroughly you've researched the history of the defeat of fascists.
Chamberlain's England, and the isolationist America across the ocean, did defeat the fascists. Chamberlain's leadership of his party shifted to Churchill. The isolationism of America was turned around by FDR and Pearl Harbor.
The party that was cowardly in 2002 will take over the COngress this week. We'll see if they've learned anything, and if they've developed any more spine, in the interim.
If you're banking on some other scenario --Venezuela-like, or otherwise-- could you spell out just how you envision that playing out?
by
Andrew Bard Schmookler (321 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 153 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 12:30:22 AM
Andy, you may think that "Chamberlain's England, and the isolationist America across the ocean, did defeat the fascists. Chamberlain's leadership of his party shifted to Churchill. The isolationism of America was turned around by FDR and Pearl Harbor."
What actually happened was that the U.S. and British industrialists like Henry Ford and Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, who had been financing Hitler, arranged for many of the top Nazis to be brought over here in Operation Paperclip, and they have been helping to shape U.S. policy ever since. Nazi war criminals were placed in strategic positions within the military-industrial complex and helped it take over this country.
The U.S. was never actually anti-fascist. It was always anti-Communist. We didn't enter the war to help England or to fight Nazi Germany, we entered the war to keep Germany from being taken over by the Soviet Union. We never bombed U.S. factories in Nazi Germany, and we used the atomic bombs on Japan instead of on Germany. We wouldn't let Jews seek refuge here, and General Patton treated the displaced persons in his camps almost as badly as the Nazis had.
Read some of Charles Higham's books, like "Trading With the Enemy," and do a little research about Operation Paperclip.
I know some American anti-fascists who went to Spain with the Abraham Lincoln Brigade to fight Franco, or went to prison in Portugal. The U.S. labeled them "premature anti-fascists" but after the U.S. entered WWII, the label was not removed from them, they were never de-blacklisted, and our government considers them subversives to this day because they fought fascism.
Take a look at our foreign policy since WWII and notice how many fascist governments we've installed and supported, and how we have always opposed with violence and assassinations the slightest tendency towards socialism. Take a close look at the difference between the way our State Department treats fascists and anti-fascists. At the same time that we are supposedly engaged in a war on terror, we are protecting known terrorist Luis Posada Corriles. The Cuban Five are still in jail for attempting to monitor U.S. terrorism against Cuba where we tried hundreds of times to assassinate Castro. Sure he nationalized the Mafia's hotels and casinos in Cuba. He also introduced universal literacy, national health care, and many other things that our fascist government doesn't want us to know about. And he did it on a small, impoverished island despite our embargoes.
An interesting sidelight is that fascism is supposed to be more efficient than Communism. The trains running on time and all that rot. Well compare New Orleans after Katrina to how Castro evacuated over a million people when a hurricane hit Cuba and didn't lose a single life.
Listen to Marjorie Cohn, the President of the National Lawyers Guild, talk about the huge detention camps that Bush has built all over this country. Take a close look at the pictures of some of them online, the windowless buildings, the railroad lines, and compare them to the Nazi camps.
Yes, I am banking on Venezuela. The cooperative, humanitarian model is going to win out over fascism, unless fascists destroy the world first. When Lise Meitner, the mother of the bomb, and Albert Einstein decided to give the secret of nuclear fission to the U.S., they knew it was a fascist country much too power-hungry to refuse such a gift. They knew it would be developed and used. They were great geniuses (well, Einstein may have gotten a lot of his ideas from his wife, but Meitner was a great genius), and they knew it was the only way to stop the endless cycle of violence.
The U.S. started unjustified wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is overextended, and there is no end in sight. Bush wants to nuke Iran, thinking that it would save his Presidency, when the only thing it would accomplish is to set off a nuclear holocaust that would destroy the world. But like the guy who gets so angry because his wife and kids won't obey him that he kills them and then shoots himself, Bush knows only the patriarchal/hierarchical/fascist way of thinking. Just like in Viet Nam where they said that sometimes they have to destroy a village to save it, Bush thinks that he has to control the world even if the only way to do that is to destroy it.
The Bolivarians operate from a different model. A cooperative, egalitarian model. That's the only chance the world has of surviving. If the world survives it will be because their democratic model of society wins out. If the neoliberal (fascist) model wins out, the world will be destroyed.
If you're banking on the world's biggest debtor nation, the nation with the most enemies in the world, the nation with the largest prison system in the world, and the only developed nation without a national health care plan, to win, I suggest you start hedging your bets. Like Michael Franti sings, "You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace."
--Mark
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 8:36:21 AM
Because other than locking and loading, I don't see that we have much choice. We have this despicable two party system, at the moment, like it or not. I would like to see that change in my lifetime, but that is not reality now.
Yes, I do believe that many of the votes that came after 9/11 were cowardly on the part of the Democrats. Of course, I can say that, since no anthrax missives came my way.
I agree with you, Andrew, on much of what you say.
We seem to get the leaders we deserve. We allowed two men to assume the highest offices in the land, who were not elected by the people of this country, with barely a peep of dissent.
Admittedly, many of us were not fooled for one minute by the excuses for going to war in Iraq. So far we have been called traitors, terrorist appeasers (and, of course, the good old standbys from the days of yore; dirty stinkin' Hippies and communists). Quite a few well-known people have suggested that we should all be locked up for dissent, until this endless war on an extreme emotion (terror) is over.
I read just yesterday that there is a Right-wing radio thug, who is literally calling for the assassination of half of Congress (meaning the Democrats) and he isn't just blowing off steam. He is as serious as a heart attack. He even has a time line, as to when this mass murder should happen. The FBI knows about it, but is doing little about it. Does anyone have to guess what would happen to any one of us who called for the assassination of the entire Bush administration?
The Bushites and their slack-jawed supporters are some of the scariest people I have ever seen. I will readily admit that they scare the hell out of me. But I can also promise that I will not shut up until they shut me up.
I will also give the Democrats a chance, because they are all we have, besides ourselves. If we want them to be successful, we have to support them, by hammering the media and making useful suggestions. We can also fill the National Mall in March and refuse to leave until there is Restoration, Truth and Accountability, and our troops come home.
2007 is going to be the year of the protest, not that we haven't been protesting for years now. This year, if we have massive numbers, we will not be ignored, as in the past.
In the meantime, we have the Net. If we show courage, maybe our leaders will show some too.
by
wintefire6 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 5:22:28 AM
on one of the election integrity lists that I subscribe to.
An election integrity activist described how he had spoken with one of the top female Democrats in Congress, and explained the importance of honest elections.
The response was along the lines of, "I agree with you. Now go out and drum up enough popular support to make me do it."
But that's just a way of politely getting rid of somebody. Polls showing that most Americans want Bush impeached haven't convinced Democrats in Congress impeach him. Polls showing that most Americans oppose the illegal occupation of Iraq haven't stopped Democrats from voting to continue to fund it. It doesn't matter how much popular support you round up (92% of Americans want honest elections, and I have to presume the other 8% are, or are employed by politicians), the Democrats and Republicans in Congress represent the military-industrial complex, not their constituents.
Supporting them is foolish. If Republicans had voted for the war and Democrats against it, we could support Democrats without acting against our own best interests. If Republicans had voted for the Patriot Acts and Democrats had voted against them, we could support Democrats without acting against our own best interests. But when both parties, with a few exceptions on each side, have similar voting records, you can't say that the Democrats are all we have so we have to support them. We don't have them and we'd be fools to support them. We have a corrupt two-party system that acts in unison to further the neoliberal agenda.
The only way to change things is to withhold support from those who do not represent us. We can continue to lobby them and try to push them to represent us, but until and unless they actually do, any support you give them just makes them think that they can ignore what you say and continue to take you for granted.
Politicals parties are not mentioned in the Constitution. They have no Constitutional right to exist. They have no more right than any other corporations to choose our candidates for us. We have a corporate-run government instead of government of, by, and for the people. We're the people, not the entities incorporated as political parties. And the only way we're going to break their stranglehold on U.S. politics is if we withdraw our support from them.
Many people have compared Democrats to abused wives who cannot leave their batterers. The analogy is apt. And saying that he's all you have, that you love him, that someday he might change, that you don't know what you'd do without him, and all the rest, is just going to get you killed. Get out, while you can. Take the kids and head for the nearest shelter. He doesn't love you, he just wants to control you. Nothing you do or say will ever change him. Wake up!
--Mark
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments)
on Thursday, January 4, 2007 at 9:02:23 AM
that Andy sincerely thinks that currently the one and only force which has a chance to take power from the Bushist junta are the Dems- they still are the only organizationally reasonable alternative. There are no others. In that mirror and I agree, it is a pretty correct assessment) all our noises about 'giving Dems a chance' or 'not believing them' do not matter; there are no choices except the one between villains and cowards as mymark said so correctly too. So, reality dictates that we have what we have and we better support the lesser of evils. This aspect
