The trouble with American authoritarians - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 10-29-2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

The wretched mind of the American authoritarian
Glenn Greenwald

Decadent governments often spawn a decadent citizenry. A 22-year-old Nebraska resident was arrested yesterday for waterboarding his girlfriend as she was tied to a couch, because he was wanted to know if she was cheating on him with another man; I wonder where he learned that? There are less dramatic though no less nauseating examples of this dynamic. In The Chicago Tribune today, there is an Op-Ed from Jonah Goldberg -- the supreme, living embodiment of a cowardly war cheerleader -- headlined: "Why is Assange still alive?" It begins this way:

I'd like to ask a simple question: Why isn't Julian Assange dead? . . . WikiLeaks is easily among the most significant and well-publicized breaches of American national security since the Rosenbergs gave the Soviets the bomb. . . .

So again, I ask: Why wasn't Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago?

It's a serious question.

He ultimately concludes that "it wouldn't do any good to kill him, given the nature of the Web" -- whatever that means -- and reluctantly acknowledges: "That's fine. And it's the law. I don't expect the U.S. government to kill Assange, but I do expect them to try to stop him." What he wants the Government to do to "stop" Assange is left unsaid -- tough-guy neocons love to beat their chest and demand action without having the courage to specify what they mean -- but his question ("Why isn't Julian Assange dead?") was published in multiple newspapers around the country today.

Christian Whiton, a former Bush State Department official, wasn't as restrained in his Fox News column last week, writing:

Rather, this [the WikiLeaks disclosure] is an act of political warfare against the United States. . . . .Here are some of the things the U.S. could do: . . .Explore opportunities for the president to designate WikiLeaks and its officers as enemy combatants, paving the way for non-judicial actions against them.

I emailed Whiton and told him I'd like to do a podcast interview with him for Salon about his WikiLeaks proposal and he replied: "Thank you for the invitation, but I am starting a trip tomorrow and will be on a plane just about all day." I replied that it didn't have to be the next day -- I'd be happy to do it any day that was convenient for him -- and he then stopped answering. As I said, the real objective is for them to beat their chest in public and show everyone how tough they are -- take 'em out, Whiton roared -- but they then scamper away when called upon to be specific about what they mean or to defend it (let alone to participate in the violence they relentlessly urge). Whiton was just echoing his fellow war cheerleader, torture advocate Marc Thiessen, who wrote this in The Washington Post, under the headline "WikiLeaks Must be Stopped"

The government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement but also intelligence and military assets to bring Assange to justice and put his criminal syndicate out of business.

"Military assets": apparently, according to this brave and battle-tested warrior -- Marc Thiessen -- the U.S. can and should just send a drone over London or Stockholm and eradicate Assange, or just send some ground troops into Western Europe to abduct him.

Speaking of war cheerleaders, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg today points to an Editorial by The New York Sun's Seth Lipsky which fantasizes -- as Goldberg puts it -- that "Lincoln, and FDR as well, would have pretty much tried to hang the Wikileaks founder for treason." Apparently, the fact that Assange is not and never was an American citizen is no bar to hanging him for "treason": when you wallow in self-centered, self-absorbed imperial exceptionalism, everyone on the planet has the overarching duty of loyalty to your own government, and you think everyone is under the auspices of American rule.

There are multiple common threads here: the cavalier call for people's deaths, the demand for ultimate punishments without a shred of due process, the belief that the U.S. is entitled to do whatever it wants anywhere in the world without the slightest constraints, a wholesale rejection of basic Western liberties such as due process and a free press, the desire for the President to act as unconstrained monarch, and a bloodthirsty frenzy that has led all of them to cheerlead for brutal, criminal wars of aggression for a full decade without getting anywhere near the violence they cheer on, etc. But that's to be expected. We lived for eight years under a President who essentially asserted all of those powers and more, and now have a one who has embraced most of them and added some new ones, including the right to order even American citizens, far from any battlefield, assassinated without a shred of due process. Given that, it would be irrational to expect a citizenry other than the one that is being molded with this mentality.

* * * * *

One of the most progressive ads of the election cycle comes -- ironically, sadly, and revealingly enough -- from Alaska's GOP incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski, against GOP nominee and tea party candidate Joe Miller: Joe's America - TV AD

The wretched mind of the American authoritarian

Is anyone really surprised at these kinds of things anymore? The asshole 22 year old kid literally torturing his girlfriend for information isn't really any different from Jonah Goldberg calling for Julian Assange's extra judicial execution. These are both just common examples of what authoritarianism looks like on an individual level. The same militaristic authoritarianism which resulted from a combination of irrational fear and loose morals that lead the country for 8 years (and in many ways is still in power) inevitably finds its way down to those citizens with the same irrational fears and loose morals, rotting the country's core. It's as inevitable as death and taxes.

What thoughts do you have on the long-lasting consequences of authoritarian government and authoritarian corporatocracy having on individual people? do you think this is something we can resist indefinitely? Do you think this is something to be fought? If so, how? What examples are you seeing of this?

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?

robot_parade · 10-29-2010, 08:57 PM

Glenn Greenwald annoys the shit out of me. Sure, he seems to be right most of the time, but damn, he's annoying about it.

I don't have much to say about authoritarianism, except that liberals and conservatives seem to suffer from it in approximately equal degrees.

Willravel · 10-29-2010, 09:39 PM

Do you think there's a connection between your annoyance with Glenn and the fact he's usually right?

dksuddeth · 10-30-2010, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I would assume that authoritarianism only crops up in a democracy when there are great risks.

you would assume wrong. Authoritarian pops up all the time by an electorate playing upon fears of their constituency. It's how governments obtain and expand power. plain and simple. nothing more than that.

Willravel · 10-30-2010, 09:34 AM

Governments, yes, but not only governments. Any center of power be it governmental, corporate, religious, etc. can be or become authoritarian.

Baraka_Guru · 10-30-2010, 10:45 AM

Maybe we should make a distinction between soft authoritarianism and hard authoritarianism.

Willravel · 10-30-2010, 12:23 PM

When it's hard authoritarianism it an inappropriate time, you have to think about baseball until it becomes soft authoritarianism again.

robot_parade · 10-31-2010, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Do you think there's a connection between your annoyance with Glenn and the fact he's usually right?

No...I generally give people a lot of slack when they're right. :-)

I think that it's just his writing style that annoys me. While I usually agree with what he's saying, his writing comes off as screechy, whiny, and annoying. I'm glad he's out there, calling people out and telling truth to power, and I'm interested in a lot of the issues he talks about, but I removed him from my RSS reader long ago because I just can't stand his writing style.

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..

10-30-2010, 10:45 AM	#7 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Maybe we should make a distinction between soft authoritarianism and hard authoritarianism. __________________ 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

10-29-2010, 08:57 PM	#3 (permalink)
robot_parade Junkie Location: San Antonio, TX	Glenn Greenwald annoys the shit out of me. Sure, he seems to be right most of the time, but damn, he's annoying about it. I don't have much to say about authoritarianism, except that liberals and conservatives seem to suffer from it in approximately equal degrees.

10-29-2010, 09:39 PM	#4 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Do you think there's a connection between your annoyance with Glenn and the fact he's usually right?

10-30-2010, 09:34 AM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Governments, yes, but not only governments. Any center of power be it governmental, corporate, religious, etc. can be or become authoritarian.

10-30-2010, 12:23 PM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	When it's hard authoritarianism it an inappropriate time, you have to think about baseball until it becomes soft authoritarianism again.