Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - The Case Against Bush & Rumsfeld War Crimes

roachboy · 05-31-2005, 06:41 AM

first, i have no general disagreement with the article that began the post beyond thinking as i was reading it that the argument should have been clearer as an argument--that a large amount of evidence exists that *would* justify charging folk in this administration with various crimes, *were there* an agreed-upon institutional framework within which such prosecution could take place.

even if there were such a framework, these folk would be innocent until proven guilty--no need to reproduce the "logic" of the lovely double-tiered "legal" system particular to bushworld vis-a-vis those deemed potential "enemies of the states" in arguments against that world---it makes no sense to on the one hand criticize the administration--rightly to my mind--for its evacuation of legal due process on the one hand and then do the same in the critique.

on the other hand, it is interesting that once again you find here an entire catalogue of conservative avoidance mechanisms at work. the pointless relativizing move--a tactic worked out intially with reference to clinton (bush did x but clinton did 5, so...); the ubiquitous accusation of "bush bashing"--a term that really does end discussion with conservatives---when it comes up, the effect is simply "i am not listening"---which i find interesting as a response, viewed from a remove: there is no need to think out the implications of critical/damning information in rightworld--you can simply dismiss it. very curious phenomenon for a democratic polity to be infected with--it is wholly antithetical to informed debate.

as for chargnes of treason--they seem little more than a particular hysterical loop that runs round and round within the bigger conservative strategies for dismissing dissonant information.

postshower edit:

the opposition to bush and the broader political movement for which he stands looses everything when it concedes ground to conservative-style discourse--what is required is no simple change of figurehead within the same ideological context, but a different ideological context and different people operating within it as well--

opposition to bush et al has to operate in a different, better register, with more information, more nuanced interpretations etc. in that way, operations like what you see above with reference to the conservacliche "bush-bashing" are exposed for what they are--tropes for reducing cognitive dissonance, faclie, content-free modes of dismissing information they do not like. folk who grow dissasatisfied with the self-limited, self-limiting intellectual and political worlds available to them through right ideology should be able to see that what is a stake in their ideological choice is more than support for a particular president, but an entire mode of thinking, of processing the world.

another way of saying the same thing: the worst possible outcome of political conflict across the borders that seperate rightwing world from that inhabited by other people is for the outside to come to resemble too much the inside.

what i have figured out across being in places like this one is that, no matter how gratifying it might be, direct frontal attack on conservatives may not in fact be the best way to dissuade them of their politics (or convince them of bankrupt character of their politics--either way)--it is better, i think, to simply refuse their frame of reference, build alternative readings of the world and continue to do it, demonstrating over and over the obvious limitations of the conservative modes of processing information. the way to defeat conservative ideology is not on its own grounds--it is more information, more interpretation, closer description, better analyses, a different vision of capitalism, a different vision of the consequences of that economic system, on and on....

05-31-2005, 06:41 AM	#39 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	first, i have no general disagreement with the article that began the post beyond thinking as i was reading it that the argument should have been clearer as an argument--that a large amount of evidence exists that would justify charging folk in this administration with various crimes, were there an agreed-upon institutional framework within which such prosecution could take place. even if there were such a framework, these folk would be innocent until proven guilty--no need to reproduce the "logic" of the lovely double-tiered "legal" system particular to bushworld vis-a-vis those deemed potential "enemies of the states" in arguments against that world---it makes no sense to on the one hand criticize the administration--rightly to my mind--for its evacuation of legal due process on the one hand and then do the same in the critique. on the other hand, it is interesting that once again you find here an entire catalogue of conservative avoidance mechanisms at work. the pointless relativizing move--a tactic worked out intially with reference to clinton (bush did x but clinton did 5, so...); the ubiquitous accusation of "bush bashing"--a term that really does end discussion with conservatives---when it comes up, the effect is simply "i am not listening"---which i find interesting as a response, viewed from a remove: there is no need to think out the implications of critical/damning information in rightworld--you can simply dismiss it. very curious phenomenon for a democratic polity to be infected with--it is wholly antithetical to informed debate. as for chargnes of treason--they seem little more than a particular hysterical loop that runs round and round within the bigger conservative strategies for dismissing dissonant information. postshower edit: the opposition to bush and the broader political movement for which he stands looses everything when it concedes ground to conservative-style discourse--what is required is no simple change of figurehead within the same ideological context, but a different ideological context and different people operating within it as well-- opposition to bush et al has to operate in a different, better register, with more information, more nuanced interpretations etc. in that way, operations like what you see above with reference to the conservacliche "bush-bashing" are exposed for what they are--tropes for reducing cognitive dissonance, faclie, content-free modes of dismissing information they do not like. folk who grow dissasatisfied with the self-limited, self-limiting intellectual and political worlds available to them through right ideology should be able to see that what is a stake in their ideological choice is more than support for a particular president, but an entire mode of thinking, of processing the world. another way of saying the same thing: the worst possible outcome of political conflict across the borders that seperate rightwing world from that inhabited by other people is for the outside to come to resemble too much the inside. what i have figured out across being in places like this one is that, no matter how gratifying it might be, direct frontal attack on conservatives may not in fact be the best way to dissuade them of their politics (or convince them of bankrupt character of their politics--either way)--it is better, i think, to simply refuse their frame of reference, build alternative readings of the world and continue to do it, demonstrating over and over the obvious limitations of the conservative modes of processing information. the way to defeat conservative ideology is not on its own grounds--it is more information, more interpretation, closer description, better analyses, a different vision of capitalism, a different vision of the consequences of that economic system, on and on.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-31-2005 at 07:15 AM..