Comments on: Republicans against torture

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:52:42 +0000

It is perfectly all right to be horrified by all sorts of things. But not all things that horrify you are worthy of being labeled Stalinesque.

By: Randolph Fritz

Randolph Fritz — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 22:46:21 +0000

Bigmacattack, 5,000 false arrests, however cruel, pale beside Stalin’s execution of millions. Even the requested right to deport foreign nationals to certain torture is still minor, compared to Stalin’s vast cruelties. Nonetheless, these are monstrous things. The abuses of the US radical right have steadily descended as the radicals have gained power and I can see no reason to believe that they have reached their nadir; long before that nadir has been reached we will be unable to remove them from power without civil war. The time, therefore, to do so is now and yet, like the defenders of Stalin’s greater abuses, still the moderate right defends these acts. The leaders of the right have support torture. Never forget it. “If Kerry is the canidate of little government, less government spending, why aren’t progessives rallying to Bush. And why aren’t conservatives rallying to Kerry.” Why is this more important to conservatives than torture? Surely even the consideration of torture as government policy is more important than reasonable fiscal policies one disagrees with? For myself, if I had a choice between John McCain and Joe Covert Stalinist, I would vote for McCain in a second. I disagree with McCain on many points, but after a McCain victory, the USA would still be a place where I could still speak my mind and pursue my political goals. After Joe Stalinist, tyranny. Values. There’s political disagreement, and then there’s raw tyranny. I do not want to win so badly that I am willing to see the USA turn into a tyranny. And I doubt the moderate right does, either. But the moderate right seems to me to want to win so badly that its members are willing to ignore tyrannical acts on the part of your leaders. That is how tyrants come to power. Is it all right for me to be horrified? Please?

By: mona

mona — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:07:36 +0000

It’s always comforting, when people are more outraged by outrageously hyperbolic parallels than by the actual existence of hundreds of people being detained with no charges, illegal detention camps, torture, abuses, violations, ex-Baathists and Chalabi’s cousins ruling Iraq, and the talebans back in charge in Afghanistan, only now they’re your friends. Priorities, priorities. You don’t disrespect the Great Leader, that’s what matters most.

By: BigMacAttack

BigMacAttack — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:54:33 +0000

Randolph Fritz, ‘Well, 5000 arrests, no convictions is a start. The time to recoil in disgust is before the work camps, surely?’ From the begining it was pretty appearent that you were trying to have your cake call Bush Stalin like and eat it deny your were calling Bush Stalin like. Thanks for the confirmation.

By: BigMacAttack

BigMacAttack — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:39:17 +0000

Maynard Handley, My actual argument was ‘I am allowed to point out that millions of ordinary Republicans will be voting for Bush because they very reasonably believe Kerry will spend even more. Because they value the lives of millions of unborn children. Because being good men, who trust in their good government at home, they cannot make the connection between removing the constraints of that government abroad, to deal with a threat that frightens them, and actions that they find genuinely despicable. When narcissists or the just plain nasty denounce those decent people as immoral, expect me to be offended.’ How you get – ‘Damn straight that’s what I’m saying. Your argument against that seems to be, “Yeah well at least Bush won’t raise my taxes”.’ from that is beyond me. ‘I don’t care about your attitude towards the candidates vis a vis taxes, gay marriage, the environment or anything else. The point is; by voting for Bush, you are making a choice —- you are saying this bundle of other issues is more important than the moral issue of torture.’ Yes quite. That person might be saying the lives of millions of unborn children are more important than your fantasies regarding Bush and torture. (Do try and remember that one of the reasons I am not voting for Bush is torture.) I grow bored. Continue chanting do you agree with my point of view or are you so immoral you lust for the blood of innocents. Without my input.

By: Randolph Fritz

Randolph Fritz — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 18:11:12 +0000

“Oh, give me a break. the conflation of Bush with Stalin is just that, a conflation; there is no personal or historical parallel between the two. As much as I loathe Bush, he has yet to send millions of US citizens to die in Alaska in work camps.” Well, 5000 arrests, no convictions is a start. The time to recoil in disgust is before the work camps, surely? And the parallel that strikes me is the loyalty of otherwise-decent people to an administration that, it is more and more clear, is morally bankrupt.

By: Maynard Handley

Maynard Handley — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 10:17:10 +0000

Perhaps Randolph is but Maynard clearly is not. He clearly states that if Sebastian condemn’s the torture but votes for Bush he is supporting torture while trying to cover himself with the mantle of a good guy. Damn straight that’s what I’m saying. Your argument against that seems to be, “Yeah well at least Bush won’t raise my taxes”. Look, if your personal opinion is that lower taxes is something you value as more important than the federal government’s attitude towards torture (let’s put aside the fact that Bush’s lower taxes are all an illusion that’s going to crumble pretty soon anyway), look that’s your choice, and you have to live what that; but at least have the guts to outright say it. I will lay out the argument very simply for you: * This present administration has indicated repeatedly that it has no moral qualms about torture, to the maximum extent it can get away with it * If they stay in power, they will undoubtedly use their re-election as an affirmation of the past four years, and will be even more aggressive in employing torture, no habeas corpus, secret laws, and whatever else they can get away with * Therefore if you help them into power, you are complicit with this future behavior. I don’t care about your attitude towards the candidates vis a vis taxes, gay marriage, the environment or anything else. The point is; by voting for Bush, you are making a choice—- you are saying this bundle of other issues is more important than the moral issue of torture. At that point, OF COURSE you lose the right to claim the moral high ground for yourself as this big anti-torture advocate.

By: BigMacAttack

BigMacAttack — Sat, 02 Oct 2004 02:03:13 +0000

Jack, ‘Sandriana, bigmacattack, the conflation of Bush and Stalin is lainly a straw man. Indeed Randolph Fritz explicitly disavows the claim you criticize — that Bush is as bad as Stalin.’ And I accepted both Randoplh’s disavowal and Maynard’s explanation. What you have presented is a strawman about a strawman. ‘They are also explicitly being charitable towards those who support Bush.’ Perhaps Randolph is but Maynard clearly is not. He clearly states that if Sebastian condemn’s the torture but votes for Bush he is supporting torture while trying to cover himself with the mantle of a good guy. But perhaps you consider such an attitude charitable. ‘The suggestion that Kerry will spend more than Bush is based on what? The record of Bill Clinton? Carter? This non-evidence based approach is exactly the sort of prejudiced feeling Maynard and randolph are talking about.’ Ok fine. If the shoe fits wear it. If Kerry is the canidate of little government, less government spending, why aren’t progessives rallying to Bush. And why aren’t conservatives rallying to Kerry. Could I please be spared the patronizng nonsense of Kerry supporting progessives urging me to support Kerry because Bush is a big spender? Please. ‘There must be a better defense of Bush than “he’s not as bad as Stalin”.’ Yes as I noted one reasonable defense might be he isn’t as bad as Kerry. Looks like a slim majority of Americans currently agree.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 21:14:04 +0000

Sandriana, bigmacattack, the conflation of Bush and Stalin is lainly a straw man. Indeed Randolph Fritz explicitly disavows the claim you criticize—that Bush is as bad as Stalin. They are also explicitly being charitable towards those who support Bush. The simple point is that people who in their own sphere would have been against all the bad things Stalin did continued to support him long after it became obvious that he was in fact a monster. The implication is that with this failure of critical faculties disappears an important check on the exercise of power. The suggestion that the modern Republican party bears little relation to the party of Eisenhower or Lincoln seems unarguable and is indeed documented. The party is protectionist, free spending, centralising, interventionist and intrusive in society. The suggestion that Kerry will spend more than Bush is based on what? The record of Bill Clinton? Carter? This non-evidence based approach is exactly the sort of prejudiced feeling Maynard and randolph are talking about. There must be a better defense of Bush than “he’s not as bad as Stalin”.

By: BigMacAttack

BigMacAttack — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:56:01 +0000

Randolph Fritz, So why are progressives so blind? Why do they refuse to support Republicans even after 20 years of Republicans demonstrating that they stand against everything conservatives stand for? Maynard Handley is allowed to call Sebastian Holsclaw and anyone who votes for Bush immoral. I am allowed to point out that millions of ordinary Republicans will be voting for Bush because they very reasonably believe Kerry will spend even more. Because they value the lives of millions of unborn children. Because being good men, who trust in their good government at home, they cannot make the connection between removing the constraints of that government abroad, to deal with a threat that frightens them, and actions that they find genuinely despicable. When narcissists or the just plain nasty denounce those decent people as immoral, expect me to be offended.

By: BigMacAttack

BigMacAttack — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:53:46 +0000

Maynard Handley, At least I have the option. If that is the case Randolph Fritz could and should have used a different analogy. An analogy that wasn’t so needlessly emotive. As is, instead of making his point, his analogy distracts from his point. As this thread very clearly shows.

By: Sandriana

Sandriana — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:00:57 +0000

My apologies for double and now triple-posting :-/

By: Sandriana

Sandriana — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:58:49 +0000

Oh, give me a break. the conflation of Bush with Stalin is just that, a conflation; there is no personal or historical parallel between the two. As much as I loathe Bush, he has yet to send millions of US citizens to die in Alaska in work camps. However, what strikes me as undeniably true is that, should you continue to support a politician or party knowing what their policies are and their actions have been, then you also hold moral responsibility for what that person has done or will do. One of the major planks of democracy is collective responsibility for the actions of society. Otherwise,what’s the point in having a vote at all?

By: Sandriana

Sandriana — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 10:57:23 +0000

By: Randolph Fritz

Randolph Fritz — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:47:51 +0000

bigmacattack, I am thinking not of the “dismantling of the welfare state in the US and the banning of abortion”, but of the legalization, however indirect, of torture. I am thinking of Abu Ghraib. I am thinking of the disappeared, both here and in Iraq. I am thinking, also, of the contempt for democracy the current Republican leadership seems to display, and of their contempt for conservative values: in their hands the government gets ever larger and ever more invasive. Then we have their fiscal policy: borrow and spend, going back over 20 years—the largest peacetime expansion of the national debt in US history was led by the Reagan administration. And, no, it doesn’t match Stalin’s horrors. What I am struck by, though, is the way Republicans have stuck by their leadership, even as it has turned against everything they stand for. And now, torture. Torture! How long do we wait for the honest conservatives and Republicans to recoil in disgust? Take the left’s history with Stalin as a warning: the time to recoil in disgust is before the purges, before the Gulags. Before Abu Ghraib. Before “extraordinary rendition” becomes law. Believe me, it can get worse. It can get much worse.