|
and so it appears that this thread landed (so far at least) in exactly the spot you would have anticipated had you simply thought about the matter and never launched it: the folk who support the war with one variant of "reality"--those who opposed with another. and it seems no way to move between positions.
and still no willingness on the part of conservatives to put their positions fully on the table, to question the linkages between their own assessments of the situation in iraq and their support for bushwar up front.
both these positions cannot simultaneously be correct.
so we go back to the earlier argument within the thread, about the underlying causes for this differend, if you like---in the world where there is no difference between policy and politics, no difference between what is marketed and what is "real" this is what you get--conservatives who work from within the reigning discourse can do and say nothing in response to critiques either of their particular positions, nor of the results that bush's policies are continuing to generate on the ground, except to work through already banal talking points. it really does seem that conservsative modes of argument are entirely closed, entirely self-referential, and entirely incapable of interacting with positions that are framed differently.
host earlier had talked about this is psychological terms--i talked about it in terms of a particular style of argument--either way the results are the same.
is it really impossible for a reflective conservative defense of this misbeggotten imperial adventure to be mounted? one that at least poses the question of what kind of relation obtains for them between their initial assessment of the arguments put forward by the bush people and their take on what is going on now in iraq?
the positions--left (if you want--this is america after all) and right are mutually exclusive. if this and other threads like it are any index, conservative arguments really hold no water whatsoever. and they cannot be justified as arguments by any of those who rehearse them. so from the outside, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the positions are simply arbitrary, and to go from there to a psychological explanation for it. but this cannot--seriously, cannot--exhaust the matter. there must be a reflexive/reflective version of support for this war somewhere, one that grapples with the kind of questions anyone who works in opposition has had to--i woudl think that the burden of proof to the contrary now rests with conservatives, at least insofar as this thread is concerned.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|