Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Baraka_Guru · 10-29-2010, 05:28 PM

I would assume that authoritarianism only crops up in a democracy when there are great risks. The GWOT is a good example of that. The problem with the GWOT is that no one knows the best way to fight it. The risks aren't entirely visible. The enemy is mainly ideological. That puts politicians at a disadvantage because they don't really know what they're dealing with, and that creates an environment of fear---a survivalist mentality.

That's how you get things like the bait & switch with Iraq, "shock & awe," "We don't do body counts," "embedded" reporters, Guantanamo Bay, waterboarding, warrantless wiretapping, etc.

It would be a challenge to argue that these things are among the trappings of liberal democracies. To do so you would have to argue that these things are the will of the people. Do/did the Americans truly want these things? Are these things they believe in and support? Most of them were directed at "enemies of the state" during "war," but not all of them were. Some were directed at Americans. There is a problem with identifying America's enemies in the GWOT; there is a problem with considering the GWOT as an actual war. But the problems don't stop there.

Where is the limit? How far will the American government go to satisfy its sense of security in an environment of fear?

What is American liberty worth these days?

That these things influence people on the individual level doesn't surprise me. It's the New American Way.

Is American liberty more or less prevalent today than it was in previous decades? In which direction is it going?

10-29-2010, 05:28 PM	#2 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	I would assume that authoritarianism only crops up in a democracy when there are great risks. The GWOT is a good example of that. The problem with the GWOT is that no one knows the best way to fight it. The risks aren't entirely visible. The enemy is mainly ideological. That puts politicians at a disadvantage because they don't really know what they're dealing with, and that creates an environment of fear---a survivalist mentality. That's how you get things like the bait & switch with Iraq, "shock & awe," "We don't do body counts," "embedded" reporters, Guantanamo Bay, waterboarding, warrantless wiretapping, etc. It would be a challenge to argue that these things are among the trappings of liberal democracies. To do so you would have to argue that these things are the will of the people. Do/did the Americans truly want these things? Are these things they believe in and support? Most of them were directed at "enemies of the state" during "war," but not all of them were. Some were directed at Americans. There is a problem with identifying America's enemies in the GWOT; there is a problem with considering the GWOT as an actual war. But the problems don't stop there. Where is the limit? How far will the American government go to satisfy its sense of security in an environment of fear? What is American liberty worth these days? That these things influence people on the individual level doesn't surprise me. It's the New American Way. Is American liberty more or less prevalent today than it was in previous decades? In which direction is it going? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 10-29-2010 at 05:32 PM..