Whiskey Fire introduces us to Armed Liberal, who tries to argue that for the Pentagon to hire retired military officers to testify on the TeeVee that Bush's war is a-okay and peachy-keen is a necessary step to defeating the Iraqi insurgency (Which apparently includes both the Palestinian Authority and Hezbollah). AL appears to see the other side as engaging in propaganda. Okay, sure, I'll go with that. But as Iraqi insurgents don't have direct access to the American public, and as AL is apparently arguing that they are degrading the fighting spirit of our public, then that of course means that our traditional media is complicit in carrying their message to us. A quick look at any day's worth of output from Media Matters makes the very strong case that the traditional media is very much an Establishment institution, dedicated to bringing us the word of the day as seen from a deeply Republican national power structure.
But what I find very disturbing about AL's viewpoint is his apparent belief that it's okay to manipulate American public opinion to support whatever war the Establishment chooses to fight at the moment. According to "Betz," whom AL quotes:
Third, by contrast, we do not focus enough effort on winning and maintaining the hearts and minds of the most critical and accessible population: our own. [emphasis in original]
This of course presumes that the war that the US is fighting is a just one and that the cause is a good one. The Establishment certainly thought Vietnam was a good cause, the American public disagreed. Certainly the Establishment under President Ronald Reagan thought it was a good idea to get involved in Lebanon, at least until the Marine barracks was blown up with nearly 300 Marines inside. They supported President Bill Clinton getting involved in Somalia until the "Black Hawk Down" incident occurred.
See, the problem is that the American public is supposed to act as a brake on leaders who want to get our country involved in unwinnable conflicts. We're supposed to act as a "check" or a "balance" against overeager warmongers. AL doesn't seem to understand that there is something deeply undemocratic about treating our own population as a dumb audience to be manipulated. It's explained in the Whiskey Fire comments section that AL is not a liberal at all, he's a libertarian, which is a different creature altogether.
This problem is compounded by AL's refusal to recognize the distinction between a government PIO (Public Information Officer), who clearly and explicitly speaks on behalf of the government and between a covert spokesperson who is allegedly speaking as an individual. The manipulation that the Marine PIOs engage in in the movie Full Metal Jacket or that the "Five O'Clock Follies" (Public briefings given in Saigon) engaged in is not a danger to democracy as the public can easily see where the information is coming from and can weigh it and judge it accordingly.
ALs view of the American and Islamic audiences is an interesting one;
Basically, if you need to target your base and find that it is fractured and lacks purpose, lacks the attention span for in-depth appeal to argument but is exquisitely sensitive to manipulation and possesses an innate mastery of semiotics then you have a problem. And if, moreover, your opponent’s base is unified, has a sense of purpose, a rich oral tradition which lends itself well to story-listening (and telling) and is fairly credulous when it comes to conspiracy theories then you have got a very serious problem.
First off, we've known since very early in the Iraq War that the Iraqi insurgency is made up of many different groups with many divergent viewpoints and strategies. The problem for the US has been that they all agree on ejecting US troops from what is, after all, their country. Second, this is a very, VERY insulting way to describe the American public! Obviously, someone who describes us as a population that "lacks the attention span for in-depth appeal to argument but is exquisitely sensitive to manipulation and possesses an innate mastery of semiotics" is someone who simply doesn't believe in democracy. Period.
There's a reason we liberals keep saying that conservatives worship Gee Dubya Bush, their "Dear Leader."
http://www.prawnworks.net/
PN3(Ret), USN, 1991-2001. Done a number of clerical-type jobs. Computer "power user," my desktop is a Windows machine, but my laptop is an Ubuntu Linux.
Articles usually cross-posted at
http://www.prawnblog.blogspot.com
Liberal, Libertarian, what's the difference? "Armed Liberal" is almost an oxymoron. "Armed Libertarian" is much more of a truism. Very interesting that the root of both words defining these "left and right wing wackos", myself included, is the same. They are both more easily dismissed that way. I think there should be a national debate between libertarian leaders and liberal leaders so as to clearly define the differences. There is a great deal of firm common ground I suspect....Of course now we have Sen Mike Gravel running as a presidential candidate in the Libertarian primary against Sen Tom Tancredo, anti immigrant libertarian. There are some clear differences there. It is amazing that one party can attract such different candidates! Four years ago Gravel would have been in the Libertarian contest against Ron Paul. I hope we can get those two to travel together as a debate program in years to come.
"Winning the hearts and minds" of Americans by lying them into a war is instead a malicious effort to win our mindless odedience through playing on our fears, our prejudice and our avarice. Lesson #1 for our experiment in democracy: Don't lose popular control of the military. When they lie to us we are threatened with the loss of control. It may be too late.
by
GeoRip (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments)
on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 5:25:13 PM
My bad, I thought the distinction between liberals and libertarians was clear. Libertarianism is very much a right-wing phenomenon, it's a philosophy that speaks pretty much entirely to wealthy, privileged white people. It really has no significance to folks outside that social context. The idea is that corporations, no matter how large and wealthy, have power over society only to the extent that they can get government to aid them. Ergo, if government is limited to the point where a county sheriff is the most influential government person around, then citizens will be free! Yeah, I know. It's a pretty wacky idea. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that government can and should help members of society achieve their fullest potential. We are all our brother's keeper. America works best when we're all trying to help everyone work their best. Nah, the two concepts sound similar, but they have very little in common.
by
Richmond Gardner (21 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 19 comments)
on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 6:29:07 AM
That guy doesn't seem like a liberal or libertarian. He's a warmongering fascist.
I knew Mike Gravel had joined the Libertarian Party but Tom Tancredo? Tom Tancredo is a warmonger, racist, and corporatist. They're really discrediting themselves aren't they.
by
Ty Shlackman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments)
on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 10:00:30 PM
