Posts Tagged ‘Terrorism’
Why conservatives and many self-styled libertarians insist on worshiping Ronald Reagan is beyond me. What’s to like? His tripling of the national debt? Promising to end the Departments of Education and Energy, and failing to do so? Selling arms to Iran? Merely being present during the inevitable fall of communism? It seems that the patently rudderless Republican Party is reduced to attributing things they never do (creating and maintaining fiscally-sound small government) to a man who never did them.
Not that they have too many presidential role models to work with. Let’s review: should they choose George W. Bush, whose unfortunately all-to-recent slew of terrible policy and popularity disasters include sending the federal deficit and national debt to spectacular heights? Perhaps George H.W. Bush, whose “Read my lips: no new taxes” pledge was a comical farce? Gerald Ford, who pardoned Nixon? Dare I even mention Nixon himself? It’s absolutely breathtaking to consider that at this point we’ve backtracked all the way to Eisenhower, and fond remembrance of 60 years (or more) past isn’t likely to energize the electorate.
The entire strategy of misty-eyed Reagan retrospective is a guaranteed failure anyway. With every breath wasted on Ronald Reagan and his so-called legacy, the Republican Party demonstrates no forward momentum into 2012 with any real presidential contender. Perhaps this wistful yesteryear obsession with Reagan is simple self-preservation via subconscious denial of today’s political realities; after all, what present-day presumptive Republican candidates are there to be excited about? It may very well be a forlorn hope that Ron Paul will enter as even a reluctant candidate, and with all the Party toes he’s stepped on over the years it’s hard to believe there wouldn’t be a concerted effort to internally sabotage his candidacy. Chris Christie, who makes headlines as a champion big-government fighter in New Jersey has repeatedly stated he won’t run. Paul Ryan, whose claim to fame is purposing a balanced budget by – oh boy! – 2063 is a highly improbable choice. Who’s left? Sarah Palin? Mike Huckabee? Can anyone actually believe the best they could come up with in the recent New Hampshire straw poll was Mitt Romney? Is there any Republican less qualified to shrink government?
It is thus that the Republicans and their Tea Party supporters in particular – both so outspokenly dedicated to reducing the size of government – are practically doomed to look in the past and credit a man with actions he never took and purported beliefs he clearly betrayed. To make matters worse, consider that the recent Republican boom in Congress is to be of scarce comfort in short order. While congressional Republicans make noise about reducing the deficit by pathetically microscopic amounts (while refusing to take on Defense or entitlement spending, which currently make about 76% of the budget), election season is right around the corner and there’s no evidence to suggest any remotely significant direction on the legislative front. Attention, GOP: the charade can’t last forever.
But it’s the so-called “Reagan Libertarians” that raise my hackles; it’s a sad commentary that hijacking and bastardizing the libertarian label is so unfortunately in vogue. If there was ever a contradiction of terms, this would be it: the defining of small government as big government. The real Reagan legacy is deficit spending, hugely expanded national debt, foreign intervention, and tax hikes. There is not and cannot be anything libertarian about any of that, period.
I suppose none of this is really surprising: the Republican Party is a contradictory self-defeating desiccated husk of anything it ever even claimed to be. You can’t have small government and the fruitless War on Terror, the patently failed War on Drugs, the morality police, the Patriot Act, pointless federal departments, oil dependence, and a bevy of foreign entanglements. Sadly, the impossible is apparently what Republicans desire – it is, after all, what they consistently vote for.
So perhaps, all things considered, Ronald Reagan is the best representative of the Republican Party that anyone could ever dream of. As long as Republicans insist on what can only be called hypocrisy, perpetuating the myth of Reagan is quite frankly the shoe that fits. But I draw the line – I must draw the line – at any fool who wishes to hitch libertarianism to Reagan’s fraudulence. Unlike the ideologically boxed-in Republicans, Libertarians can offer a future for a nation mired in very real and very present dangers. We need not clamor aboard a sinking ship, and I condemn any professed libertarian who implicitly or explicitly insists that an abandonment of libertarian principles by celebrating the antithesis of libertarianism is the path to our salvation.
January 8, 2011 was an absolute tragedy. Psychopath Jared Loughner opened fire on a crowd at a political event in Tucson, Arizona, murdering six people (including, as I’m sure you’ve heard, a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl) and wounding an even dozen – most famously, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
Naturally, the first thought that pops into your head in response to such news is, “So where does Rush Limbaugh fit into all of this?” No? How about, “To just what extent is the Tea Party directly responsible for this massacre?” Not that, either? Then your gut reaction has to have been, “I’m confused; was Sarah Palin the shooter, or the get-away driver?”
I jest. I certainly hope you don’t view mass murder as a categorically right-wing political event. I don’t mean to suggest that this heinous rampage wasn’t somehow politically motivated; after all, we’re talking about an attack at a congressional representative’s scheduled event featuring said representative being shot point-blank in the head. But let’s step back for a moment and examine the media coverage to capture a much wider picture of what went on that day. Frankly, it’s absolutely crucial that we do.
If you had an instant “it’s those damn conservatives ” reaction to this news story, I give you tongue-in-cheek congratulations for being well-trained by the ceaseless partisan politics we were all supposed to be past presumably as of the inauguration on January 20, 2009. And, no, I’m not blaming President Obama for any of this, but while you watched media coverage absolutely ram a specific political viewpoint into this tragedy before anyone even knew who the shooter was, I want you to remember that we’re supposed to be living in a transformative time of something like endless political unity, sunshine, and daffodils. I mean, right? Aren’t we all supposed to have come together by now? Was that not the general, if ridiculously wishful, expectation after the 2008 election?
No, obviously this isn’t some magical post-partisan era, and no wonder – partisanship is politics. There was never really going to be a big national group hug because we elected a likable – and black! – guy to the presidency. But really, does anyone actually believe we’re less a politically-polarized nation since… well, since this millennium? Has the entire realm of politics and political discourse become any more rational, cerebral, objective, or civil since 2000? Sure, we’re not in Utopia, but I challenge you to present an argument demonstrating that by any standard we as a nation have become more mature about our political viewpoints and disagreements as a whole.
You see, even before Jared Loughner was identified as the shooter in the Arizona killings there was a massive media push to assign a specific template to the story. Now, keep in mind that not having an identified shooter means not having a clear motive behind the shooting. Pretend you’re working at the news desk and, bam, you suddenly get reports that there’s 5 down and 13 limping (number 6 will die in the hospital, but you don’t know that yet) at a Safeway somewhere in Arizona. One of the victims is Representative Gabrielle Giffords, which makes this an extra big deal. So, what do you write?
Well, you could go with writing what you actually know: there’s 18 shot, including Rep. Giffords, and police currently report 5 dead. The identity of the shooter is unknown, but he or she may be in custody. If you as a journalist or commentator go any further than that, you’ve entered the arena of Just Making Shit Up. After all, if you don’t know more that means you don’t know anything else. Unfortunately, honesty and restraint was not the order of the day in the national media following what was to be called the Safeway Massacre, so coverage exploded into abject conjecture and an utterly shameless smear campaign. In other words, the deaths of six individuals were immediately hijacked to promote partisan politics without the slightest pause for integrity or so much as a whiff of professionalism.
Let’s break it down. From here on out, I will be quoting text from the links provided and adding my own emphasis in italics as I believe necessary.
Nobel Prize-winning New York Times columnist Paul Kurgman, January 8, 2011, before the identity of the Safeway shooter was known:
We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. [Representative Giffords has] been the target of violence before.
Ok, there’s no proof of what’s really behind all this but we do have some facts: Somebody went after the windows of Giffords’ campaign office a while back, and she is a congresswoman, and the murders took place at an official event she hosted. However, 17 other people were also shot at the scene, so making assumptions is probably a little dicey. That’s it. That’s all we know right now.
And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist.
So we’re definitely starting to leap to the assumption that this is about the Tea Party. But, remember, there’s no proof.
You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.
Those rascally Republicans! Decrying partisanship when somebody like, oh I don’t know, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman saddles them with the responsibility of a mass murder when – and I’m just quoting Mr. Krugman here – “we don’t have proof yet.”
I see that Sarah Palin has called the shooting “tragic”. OK, a bit of history: right-wingers went wild over anyone who called 9/11 a tragedy, insisting that it wasn’t a tragedy, it was an atrocity.
Wow. Way to take the high road.
I’m going to take down comments on this one; they would need a lot of moderating, because the crazies are coming out in force, and it’s all too likely to turn into a flame war.
I can’t imagine why.
Nobel Prize-winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, Janury 09, 2011, after the identity of the Safeway shooter was known:
When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?
I see you’re sticking with “atrocity.” Take note, Sarah Palin! But was I expecting “something like this” to happen? Whatever do you mean, Paul?
I remembered the upsurge in political hatred after Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 — an upsurge that culminated in the Oklahoma City bombing. And you could see, just by watching the crowds at McCain-Palin rallies, that it was ready to happen again.
Whoah, hang on a minute there. Now as of the time of this second Krugman piece, the entire country – and certainly The New York Times – is aware there is zero evidence that Jared Loughner has any affiliation at all with The Tea Party, John McCain, Sarah Palin, or anyone else even remotely like them. What we do know on 1/09 is that Loughner:
1) Is associated with a group called American Renaissance, which has an endearing mix of anti-semetic, anti-government, and pro-white nationalist bitterness.
2) Lists Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto and Hitler’s Mein Kampf among his favorite books. Ken Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest also made the cut, in perhaps the darkest of dark ironies.
3) Is a drug abuser.
4) Has serious mental health issues – including documented evidence demonstrating his obsession with mind-control – observed by the staff of his former community college as well as former classmates.
5) Has a previous record with the police involving making death threats.
So it looks like we have a complete loon as the triggerman. Hell, it looks like it’s pretty much an open-and-shut case exactly one day after the shooting. At least, if you’re not pushing a partisan outlook like Paul Krugman.
It’s true that the shooter in Arizona appears to have been mentally troubled. But that doesn’t mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event, having nothing to do with the national climate.
Really, Paul? Really? Should we ignore all evidence and force Jared Loughner into a template you’re already entrenched in, based on your previous writings? You’d better be able to sell me on it.
Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.
Wait, so by what evidence does Jared Loughner have anything to do with…
And there’s not much question what has changed. As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line.
…hey! Excuse me! We’re talking about Jared Loughner still, right? As in, what we know?
Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed ad dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.
What’s going on here? Is anyone else confused? What toxic rhetoric? Loughner has absolutely no ties to the GOP, the Tea Party, et cetera. This is officially common knowledge.
And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.
Of course, the likes of Mr. Beck and Mr. O’Reilly are responding to popular demand. Citizens of other democracies may marvel at the American psyche, at the way efforts by mildly liberal presidents to expand health coverage are met with cries of tyranny and talk of armed resistance. Still, that’s what happens whenever a Democrat occupies the White House, and there’s a market for anyone willing to stoke that anger.
Wh… what? Can we please go back to talking about Jared Loughner and how he has anything to do with what you’re talking about?
Or wait, is this a clever ploy? Are you parodying Loughner’s impenetrable and insane writings by veering far, far away from any semblance of coherence? Am I looking at a Pulitzer’s worth of cunning satire here?
Unfortunately, that hasn’t been happening: the purveyors of hate have been treated with respect, even deference, by the G.O.P. establishment. As David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter, has put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox.”
So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what’s happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on as before?
STOP! ENOUGH! Have you gone completely senile, Krugman?!
A rank idiot could note the unbearable hypocrisy of these embarrassingly self-satisfied articles; I have never in my life been exposed to such a level of self-serving garbage. Really – and I mean this from the absolute bottom of my heart – I would not be in the least bit surprised to discover that this blatantly, noxiously self-indulgent bullshit that Krugman excreted under the banner of “journalism” was sponsored by K-Y Jelly Personal Lubricant.
This is truly beyond belief and comprehension. There are six innocent people dead on the ground, and Paul Krugman deliberately ignores all evidence to exploit their cadavers and prop up his own political views. Krugman is apparently beyond realizing that his idiotic rant is exactly the kind of hostile partisanship he’s allegedly assailing. He refuses – refuses – to back down from fingering the other side of the political aisle as responsible for literal murder, and warns that more of the same is right around the corner. Absent evidence, absent proof, absent the weakest connection, Paul Krugman is the worst partisan demon he could ever dream of demonstrating.
Krugman is anything but the only member of the media who engaged in this kind of stupidity, though I’ve deliberately chosen him as a truly wondrous case study. For the sake of brevity, I’ll direct your attention to a few other corners for perusal.
There is a lesson in all of this: the person responsible is the shooter. It is utterly horrifying to witness the depths of political partisanship our country has plummeted to when people seek to recast the actions of a lone gunman into a political event before – and after – there’s a shred of proof either way. As a nation, we have got to start getting our act together and recognizing how backwards we have become; there is no acceptable alternative.
I’ve been thoroughly enjoying having nothing to do for the past week as finals season (which is really about a month of pure hell) finally wrapped up, and I’ve been wondering what to write about next. I can’t bring myself to cover anything particularly heavy; I’d bore myself to tears just trying to put together something coherent about the FDA and drug costs, or censorship (as topical as that would be around “******mastime”), or even about the very welcome news that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is on its way out the door – let alone try to package any of those topics in less than 2,500 words so somebody might actually read it. So if you were hoping to stumble across my take on the START, or Manifest Destiny, or the Hawley-Smoot Tariff, tough. I’m going to talk about conspiracy theories, because it amuses me to do so.
Libertarians get painted as conspiracy nuts, and it’s not terribly difficult to figure out why. I mean, let’s go down the list:
1. We’re third-party.
2. We really can – and often do – blame “the government” for about anything.
3. Texas “Libertarian Republican” (massive qualifying quotation marks) gubernatorial candidate Debrah Medina couldn’t give a straight answer on “So was 9/11 an inside job, or what?” nine years after the fact. Thanks for the press, Deb.
It kind of sucks, but what can you do? When libertarians track societal problems back to the body behind misguided public policy (also known as “the government”), we can get a little knee-jerk about it instead of realizing we ought to articulate why it is we’re blaming government this time around. If libertarians aren’t careful, we can end up sounding like tinfoil hat-wearing, black helicopter-spotting 2012 believers instead of a group of folks routinely arguing against the “value” of government intervention large and small.
Today I’m going to try and dispel the myth that libertarians are inherently conspiracy theorists by examining why we might’ve been misconstrued as a whole. After all, you non-libertarians out there might’ve once asked something like,
So do you guys really believe 9/11 was an inside job?
By and large, no. Hell no. But why would people believe that we did? In no particular order:
1. Deb Medina.
2. Our “the government” mantra.
3. Our inherent suspicion of what drives our foreign policy.
I wasn’t a libertarian on September 11, 2001. I was really more of a “if Al Gore would just shut up, everything would be sunshine and daffodils” Republican. I was incapable (more accurately, I was utterly disinclined) to view world events outside of the two-party spectrum. My perfect solution to the terrorism problem was to kill everyone who tried to kill us, and then move on. No kidding: I cheerfully played “Bombs Over Baghdad” when Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off. I certainly didn’t want to kill “all those A-rabs” because I’m not – nor have I ever been – a bigoted idiot, but I wanted the responsible parties lined up and shot summarily, and I thought everyone would come out ahead if we did.
Ah, if it were only that easy.
While the nation was caught up in an understandable patriotic fervor, you had libertarians coming out and being brave enough to say, “You know it’s not like we aren’t at least partially responsible for this tragedy, in that we ought to be looking at how our foreign policy contributed to this.”
This call for analysis was unfortunately confused as “We really deserved that mass murder.” Hell, that’s what I heard. It pissed a lot of people off; how could those libertarians say such a thing?! And it wasn’t a long step for people to believe that when libertarians said “the government is, in a way, responsible for this attack,” they actually meant “our government conducted this attack.” And why wouldn’t people assume that’s what libertarians were saying? Starting on 9/12 there was a sudden abundance of legitimate crazies coming out of the woodwork to moonlight as building code inspectors, rambling on about controlled demolition and other intricacies of architectural engineering like how the melting point of steel is too high for burning jet fuel to cause the World Trade Center to collapse all by itself (apparently somebody was busy huffing glue during 7th period Chemistry, or else they’d have realized you don’t have to actually liquefy steel to weaken its strength). I firmly believe libertarians got lumped into the conspiracy category out of hand in a “in the wrong place at the wrong time” kind of way.
Even though we libertarians believe the government is, in a sense, all-powerful (with its inherently stupid, heavy-handed, coercive, monopolistic, and counter-productive nature), the government can’t be the equivalent of a bumbling toddler stomping on sand castles and eating paint chips while it’s also a shadowy puppet-master brilliantly conducting the most ludicrously complex military conspiracy in The Entire History of Anything, Ever. And I think we can agree that all evidence points to “bumbling toddler” being infinitely more likely, yes?
Do libertarians believe in The Illumanati, et al.?
Again, no, that’s anything but a mainstream opinion.
If you don’t know, The Illuminati is pretty much a catch-all phrase that describes some ultra-powerful group of behind-the-scenes individuals controlling everything that happens around the world. The assumption is that every financial crisis, war, et cetera, is a deliberate conspiracy that is supposed to benefit this group of people somehow.
Why would anyone believe something this ridiculous? Lindsay Lohan can’t so much as fart without everyone hearing all about it, but we’re supposed to believe nobody’s been able to discover and prove the existence of “The Illuminati?” Well, you have to realize that it’s awfully convenient to believe in a mysterious “Order” being responsible for everything. Seriously, imagine being able to chalk up every evil in the world to one root cause. How perfect is that? And it’s not like this is an unprecedented trend in world history.
And, yeah, this goes right back to “the government” coming across as a libertarian’s perceived convenient scapegoat for everything. The Libertarian Party insists that it’s “The Party of Principle,” which I think is as good a slogan or moniker as any, but unfortunately I think too many libertarians forget that we’re supposed to be explaining our principles rather than assuming everyone understands where we’re coming from. It’s not like we can’t avoid being misunderstood if we take a little time to have a dialogue instead of a well-intentioned diatribe.
Do libertarians think the Mob killed Kennedy?
Probably not, but I think the Mafia legitimately could have had a roll in it. Read “I Heard You Paint Houses” on the relationship between Jimmy Hoffa, The Teamsters Union, the Mob, and Bobby Kennedy if you want to be entertained. It’s a good book.
My point here is that there’s a difference between considering alternative scenarios and committing to wildly implausible theories. Libertarians trumpet themselves as individuals, which means we like to think that, well, we like to think for ourselves. I figure that’s a positive thing… why wouldn’t it be? There’s nothing inherently bad with wondering about the “official story” and considering cui bono and all that, but that doesn’t mean we libertarians are stocking up on canned tuna and spare magazines for our Uzis while we reinforce our backyard nuclear fallout shelters because “they’re coming for us any day now.”
So, please, if you hear we’ve all hopped on the proverbial bullet train to Straight-Jacket Junction, give us libertarians the benefit of the doubt. There’s probably a reason why we’re being painted as crazies, but it’ll be the wrong reason; yes, we question, we wonder, and we say unpopular things and get mis-characterized, but that doesn’t mean we commit to conspiracy wholesale.
But, uh, that being said and all… if anyone in a black suit and mirrored shades asks you about me, I said it was Lee Harvey Oswald and only Lee Harvey Oswald. Now excuse me, because I’ve got to sweep my room for listening devices.
Unlike previous posts, I’m not going to try and take this particular news item purely from the stance of a libertarian. Obviously my political views will have some influence on every post I make, including this current Wikileaks leak-stravaganza, but this post is more opinion-driven than it is trying to illustrate a broader point that reflects on the political philosophy of libertarianism.
Ok, let’s move on. If you’ve somehow missed it completely, there’s an outfit called Wikileaks that is famous for getting a hold of private information – from public and private institutions, typically in the realm of international politics in one way or another – and makes them public. Remember the “Climategate” leak from East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit that officially blew the entire global warming argument totally out of the water? Wikileaks. Remember the video of a U.S. helicopter accidentally strafing civilians? Wikileaks (see prior link). So whatever your political stance is, Wikileaks has probably seriously pissed you off at some point. I’d describe Wikileaks as militantly transparent, in that it will publish whatever the hell it wants to make the world aware of government dealings that governments would really rather Joe and Jane Citizen didn’t know about.
Concerning this latest Wiki-leaking, the knee-jerk libertarian/anti-authoritarian is probably beside themselves with joy, equating forcible government transparency as nothing short of heaven on Earth – irrespective of potential real-world consequences beyond merely taking government influence down a peg. The knee-jerk statist/war hawk/entrenched political hack would probably think anything Wikileaks leaks that does not reflect or reinforce their personal world view is high treason with the intent of destabilizing the world as a whole. Either of these extreme views is probably driven more by emotion than it is by logic. As convenient as it would be, I don’t think it’s possible for Wikileaks to be categorically bad or categorically good.
But what the hell is Wikileaks actually trying to accomplish? Whatever your or my initial reaction to them might be, what’s their game plan here?
Argument #1: Wikileaks is anti-American and trying to do harm to American interests.
Well, that really depends on how you define “American interests.”
Is it in the interests of the American government to have itself exposed in an embarrassing light? Obviously not. Beyond being exposed as having a clearly useless method of protecting sensitive material (if some jackass from Australia can get a hold of serious “state secrets,” what does that say about the competence of the state?), the government is further horrified to have a huge array of information suddenly available to the public at large. Diplomatic discourse, domestic and international back-room dealings, and for all we know the original John Edwards paternity tests are all out there for anyone and everyone to see.
This raises two huge problems: 1) How the hell does the government save face in response to an obviously angered domestic and international populace, and 2) What the hell does this mean for future government maneuvering? If you’re “the government,” and you’re used to flying under the radar and getting away with any number of things, the realization that what can and probably will be made public in the future means you have to seriously consider being held accountable for your actions. This is nothing short of a colossal paradigm shift; it’s the highest-stakes “hand in the cookie jar” scenario anyone could dream of, and government policy will have to adjust to reflect this new reality.
That aside, is it in the interests of the American people to know what their government is up to? I’m inclined to say “yes,” for readily apparent reasons. If your safety and mine is dependent on what a group of people decide to do behind our backs, is it really in our best interests not to know just what exactly they’re up to? Consider that our government recently agreed to a $60 billion military hardware sales contract with Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago, now only to have it leaked that our government knows damn good and well that Saudi Arabia is the principle funding source for Sunni terrorism. Are we better off not having Wikileaks inform us of things like this? Are we too stupid and backward to appreciate the implications of our government getting its hands (and by extension, our hands) dirty? Does “daddy” really know best? At what point do we deserve to know what’s being done in our name? I mean, it’s just our lives and livelihood that rides on the political ramifications of what we’re not being told.
So if you think our government’s interests trump the interests of an informed American people, I guess you have to conclude that awareness is anti-American.
Argument #2: Wikileaks, as the paragon of virtue, is the best thing that could ever happen.
Thus the pendulum thus swings to the other extreme: everyone should know everything that’s going on, regardless of what’s going on, right now.
From this stance, it doesn’t really matter what the rest of the world finds out we’ve been up to because now we know what we’ve been up to. Sort of. I mean sure, at least half of the hysteria as well as the glee out there about what Wikileaks has done is due to the fact that nobody actually knows the full extent of what they can and will continue to leak, but why get caught up in the details? Whatever comes out of all this must be good. Huzzah!
The ultimate conclusion of this argument is that no matter what happens as a result of this mass leaking, at least “now we know.” It doesn’t matter that our government has been caught with its pants down in a National Enquirer sort of way; national security secrets be damned, everyone has the right to know everything their country is doing – even if that means the rest of the world knows it, too.
I think somewhere in the mind of anyone who takes this hard-line pro-transparency stance is the belief that Wikileaks will (hopefully) expose this kind of material on all nations equally, causing some sort of great public awakening and popular revolution that demands an end to government secrecy – and everything that comes with it – around the globe. I think this is a sensible supposition; I can’t imagine that there’s really a big drive among the American people for an S&M sort of national self-flagellation on the world stage, and to hell with the consequences. And to be fair, it isn’t as if the American government is the only one humiliated by having light shone into previously dark corners; just imagine if you’re China right now. All things considered, therefore, Wikileaks “just has to be” the beginning of a good thing.
Argument #3: Who cares what Wikileaks is trying to do? We need to focus on what’s going to happen.
Assuming you make it past a catastrophic “We are so screwed” mindset of an impending international doomsday Debbie Downer, or the “Where’s the champagne? I SAID WHERE’S THE GOD DAMNED CHAMPAGNE?!” attitude of the deliriously happy Damn-the-torpedoes aficionado, welcome to a more balanced middle ground.
Fact: The government – in every sense of the word, and politics aside – has tremendous influence on our lives and our security. Having no idea what government is up to completely defeats the point of our constitutional republic. If government is supposed to serve the people (also see: The Constitution), why the hell would The People need to be clueless as to what their government has going on?
Fact: What is published by Wikileaks will be directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of completely innocent people. I know Julian Assange likes to insist that his organization systematically and objectively reviews everything they put out, but I’m calling bullshit on that tripe. I defy you to demonstrate that a group of anyone can thoughtfully consider what the release of a quarter of a million sensitive documents will do to the world.
Fact: What is not published by Wikileaks would be directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of completely innocent people. Assuming Wikileaks never existed, you can’t be blithe enough to figure that a deaf and dumb American people (or anyone else, for that matter) would result in a world free of international consequences. I defy you to demonstrate that our being clueless – at our own risk and at the risk of others around the world – is an inherently good thing.
Guess what? We’re at war around the world one way or another. People are dying one way or another. Pathological government scheming enabled by rampant secrecy hasn’t done anyone much good lately, has it? Obsessive transparency with a disregard of short-term consequences isn’t too bright either, and a fixation on hopeful or wishful long-term results isn’t any better.
Can Wikileaks be a good or even great thing? Absolutely. God knows we need a change in how our government interacts with us as well as with other nations, and there’s no way that can happen without Truth being brought to light. Can we be missing the boat on the ramifications of some shadowy third party – Wikileaks – hemorrhaging information under the guise of a supreme understanding and appreciation of the ultimate results? Beyond a doubt.
I’m all for a change in international and domestic governmental finagling. It hasn’t brought about an iota of good for the rest of us. Long-term, I believe we’re no better off and no safer being ostracized from what’s supposed to be public policy. But should we venerate Wikileaks as an assuredly perfect “5-minute abs” kind of solution for what amounts to a centuries-old problem? Don’t be naive.
I find it impossible to believe anyone can grasp what Wikileaks really means. You can be consumed by pointless, steadfastly pessimistic, and uninformed terror, or you can be blinded by a deliberate insistence that an unknown cost is worth the unknown outcome; either extreme has a home for you if you like. Myself, I choose to enjoy the possibilities of Wikileaks and what it may represent, but with a suspicious eye toward not only toward their agenda (everyone’s got one), but with uncertainty as to what this titanic shake-up could mean to a fragile country and a tumultuous world beset by historic problems.