Communication, Not Disdain or Presumption, Moves the Debate

 
The following is a letter sent to Glenn Greenwald, September 15, 2009.  It is about communications in politics and political and policy discussion in America today.

It could have been written to almost anybody who is an active Democratic leaning columnist, commentator, or politician today.   But Greenwald’s column, as have several of his otherwise very strong columns, serves as a particularly good example of the points expressed.  And, apart from the basic tendencies explored below, Greenwald also writes clearly and powerfully on some critical issues.

Dear Glenn:

This letter is in regard to your September 11 column and a few of the common assertions made in it, and contains an analysis of the early Iraq war issue. But all of this, by way of example, is centrally relevant to the underlying issues surrounding our political state, policy making, discussion and debate today.

Also, please note up front, many of the points in the column were excellent…These points are not included, because they are not relevant to the fundamental — and I think very important — ideas being communicated below. On the other hand, the situation which you attempt to describe and complain of, very much is.

You write, Friday, Sept 11:

“What a crazy extremist loser he is. To recap: everything the Republican leaders said about Iraq turned out to be false, fictitious, imaginary — and their false-pretense war led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings.”

Consider that widespread, and heartfelt, sentiment, immediately above. Is there thus only one perspective that “a rational, reasonable person” could have? We’ll look at this very important question more, in a moment.

But let’s look at this first, in combination with something else you write from that same column:

“Those who use curse words to oppose torture, wars and lawbreaking are evil and unSerious (The Angry Left); those who politely and soberly advocate morally repugnant, indecent policies are respected and Serious.”

Consider the comparison between the use of curse words, and “those who politely and soberly advocate morally repugnant, indecent policies.”

You know, or you think you know, what is in any such instance, “morally repugnant,” or “indecent” policy wise. But the fact of the matter is that neither you, nor anyone else, has a monopoly on this.

The problem stems from the idea that you believe you are speaking of certain instances in which “it is obvious.” But instead, consider the question as to who and what then makes the determination of what is “obvious.”

The use of what, to many people, are offensive curse words — which often breeds hostility and immediate defensiveness (and thus more of a tendency to defend even erroneous positions) is, in contrast, not subjective, but reasonably objective. It also does nothing to advance or show a point of view. Why would they be expended when critical points, that people don’t know, could otherwise be illustrated? Or are they expended for headline appeal? If so, headline “appeal” — rather than the immediate rejection of even the general political positions maintained therein — for who?

Thus the prevailing, implicit assumption is that everyone already knows everything that is required to be known in order to have what you would deem a “sensible” position; or has not been manipulated; or do not themselves have illogical thoughts, etc. And just as bad — those who “don’t” can’t be reached. So the notion “consider the media’s response” to how these things are presented, or the perspective of regular ole’ American voters, who really don’t yet know the facts and/or may have had their opinions shaped in part by misleading rhetoric, is of seemingly little significance. But it is one of the most profoundly important concepts in politics, and in particular in America today.

And it is one of the reasons that I have tried to point out, repeatedly, that “everyone does not know” what Democrats seem to think they themselves know and repeatedly predicate much of their active communications, and messaging, upon. As a result of this often unrecognized presumption, they often implicitly think that just pointing out what they “know,” even with curse words, rather than effectively showing why to those who do not already see it this way or otherwise know the relevant facts and bases,” somehow gets it across. But outside of the choir, it largely doesn’t.

Further perpetuating this self protracting, somewhat tautological belief, is that while ample objective evidence that it hasn’t gotten across materializes, excuse after excuse — from blaming voters, to blaming the media entirely, to blaming opponents lies, to blaming this or that, to recreating history over how well moderates, Democrats, and Liberals have done or are doing — is indulged in. While, at the same time, the “choir” is often confused (that is, mistaken for), the rest of America.

Look around you at America over the past nine years. (And even today over this ridiculous health care “debate” — namely, a “debate” that has dominated the headlines for months, when most Americans, including many in the media partaking in this debate and many more Americans who are “angry” one way or the other, don’t even know the basic facts of the issue.) Who has won? Who has been unduly influential given their size? Certainly, in relation to the facts and numbers, a small cabal on the far right, over and over. A cabal that when people are sat down, shown the facts, politely, dispassionately, objectively and non partisanally reasoned with, probably over 70 percent of Americans (and maybe even some in that cabal – who deceive themselves far more than they purposefully “lie” as you and many Democrats repeatedly assume) don’t agree with at all.

But yet it still never is considered that maybe it has something to do with the way the so called “left — predominantly the politically active left and Democrats or even just those who support their positions — communicates to all the rest of America who is not otherwise simply knee jerk automatically on their side on every little item and issue.

Now let’s take a look at your first quote, the one given at the outset, by way of example

“To recap: everything the Republican leaders said about Iraq turned out to be false, fictitious, imaginary — and their false-pretense war led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings.”

(We could have used any example here, but this is a decently standard one we have seen time and time again, so we’ll use it.)

You can make any claims you want, but what many Democrats and those who support them seem to often overlook is that the Right, and in particular the far right, is almost always tying their claims into a buzz word, phrase, concept or idea that has overriding communicative value; and almost always selling and showing the beliefs and points they want to get across.

Simply concluding does not do anything. The claim you make above — albeit subjective, and we will see in a moment, objectively unclear — is not a terrible claim as far as claims go, in so far as in comparison with some of the claims made by the far right. Yet the claim does nothing whatsoever to establish a whit of credibility with those who don’t otherwise already see it this way.

Of course, the response goes, “but everybody already knows those things.” Which is exactly my point from above. Only those who already see it this way, do. (And in this particular instance, as noted, it is not even objectively correct.)

Yet Democrats and some of those who are fighting their battles (such as, in taking up some of the most important ones, often in an exceptionally well researched, documented, and reasoned way), often “think that everyone knows what they know.”

And they base their communications and presumptions upon it.

So let’s briefly return to the curse word example.

I dislike putting political, sociological, and policy considerations and proponents into “sides,” as it often misleads and perpetuates counterproductive stereotypes. But to simplify, let’s take a hypothetical example and say that “one side” shouts forth “the truth” but is uncivil, utters conclusions, doesn’t show, doesn’t reach anybody or even recognize that it is not effectively trying to reach anybody outside of its own choir, and constantly utters forth self righteously proclaimed profanities. And let’s say, for lack of a better term, “the other side” in your own words, “advocates morally repugnant, indecent policies.”

Which claim is going to be listened to?

This takes us right back to the question of “who decides” who is, in fact “advocating morally repugnant, indecent policies.”

But again, that is answered, because, they are “obvious.”

We have now come full circle.

That is, they are obvious, because to active Democrats and sometimes those in active support thereof, “everybody already knows.” When the fact is, everybody does not already know: or even see it the same way based upon even similar facts, in those rare instances when even the basic accurate facts are known. So they are not “obvious.”

And in this particular instance, you state a conclusion above which is subjective, and which does not build credibility — because it is one sided, and seemingly partisan (even if you yourself do not have strong partisan feelings.) Some of the most important things written on the Constitution in recent years sometimes come off this way to the media — who only need a fraction of the excuse provided above to dismiss some of the more important points on constitutional principles I have seen written online. Sometimes, written by you.

Let’s take a brief look at how you condemn and scorn all those who do not recognize exactly what you do — at least insofar as the media, and others who need to hear precisely the points you are making, see it — and yet at the same time, with respect to this issue (with which you are not nearly as familiar or knowledgeable?) are being somewhat subjective yourself: Or, to bring us back to the top, failing to consider another perspective altogether; and one that is not unreasonable.

I would not necessarily use your precise terminology, but the Bush Administration, for four years, certainly engaged in advocating what you would conclude were morally repugnant, indecent policies. (I personally would simply say very far right wing, extremely anti open government, and very anti open, rigorous, thoughtful, informed discussion, etc.) Okay. Yet half the country voted for Bush.

That is, half the country voted for what was, in your view, the advocacy of morally repugnant, indecent policies. So getting back to the idea that everybody knows what these are, clearly everybody does not know.

But once again we come full circle, and we get back to the excuse making game; as to “why,” Bush won. Or why Obama, a strong candidate running on an almost unprecedented inherent party advantage at a time when it would have been almost impossible for the incumbent party to retain the White House — against a campaign with the world’s poster child for ignorance and rhetoric as its running mate, on a campaign of constant dissembling, misinformation, contradiction, and almost non ending blatant head candidate inconsistency — only got 53% of the vote, and lost among whites. (The most common excuse here being that he is “Black,” or, once again, simply disparaging voters as those who make “bad” decisions because they are not as “smart.”)

So the question is once again avoided; or, we could say, the question is never even properly considered. Because, “everyone knows what we know.” And, thus it is okay to use curse words and engage in off putting incivility, so long as your position is not “morally repugnant and indecent,” based upon online Democrats, and in this case your similar, interpretation of what is morally repugnant and indecent.

Yet, again, if we all knew what in fact was the case, Bush would not have gotten one third of the vote in 2004, and we would not be having the “debates” and current ridiculous framing on issues that we, in America, still again do today.

So let’s look at that statement you make, that is so often repeated as a matter of accepted, gospel truth. We’ll skip the also problematic and obviously hyperbolic assertion that “everything the Republican leaders said about Iraq turned out to be false, fictitious, imaginary,” because certainly a large amount of it was wrong, and look at this:

“And their false-pretense war led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings.”

What was the false pretense? That Iraq had WMDs?

How many years had it been since weapons inspectors had been in Iraq up until that point?

Four years. As for inspections prior to that? Considered non probative, because Iraq had not cooperated. And the state of our actual intelligence, as a result? Almost every single intelligence agency report noted that our beliefs about Iraq WMDs were assumptions rendered “in the absence of credible data.”

To take one example, why had Senator John Kerry voted, to quote Democrats as well as Republicans, “for war”? He pointed out on the floor of the Senate how many who opposed the Iraq Resolution had called for weapons inspections. In his words, just before the vote, “In order to force inspections, you need the [real] threat of force.” Kerry, then, verbatim, again just before said vote, clearly stated: “Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of WMDs, if we can not [achieve this through] ….inspections in joint concert with our allies.”

Between all the shouting; cursing; presumptiveness; blaming of Kerry’s sometimes meandering explanations; abysmal media coverage; Democrat ridiculous acquiescence in, dismissal of, or — almost as ineffective presumptuous anger toward (without adequately illustrating) this same abysmal media coverage; and near constant far right misrepresentations, there was no clarity. (And still isn’t.)

And what happened after that vote? By December, we had international weapons inspectors in Iraq, for the first time in years, and for years more than that since viable inspections had actually taken place. And guess what, as reported in both the Washington Post and the NY Times (though both papers apparently did not read their own articles, when formulating their rah-rah groupthink cheerleading views): Inspectors were not finding anything, and were unequivocally saying to “wait.” (It’s in some measure why most of the permanent members of the Security Council voted against authorization, rendering our action, technically, and patently, in violation of international accords.)

Bush, from Cincinnati, back in October, told the entire nation, in a speech, that approving the Iraq resolution did not mean that war with Iraq was imminent, or unavoidable. The only two things that changed after that speech were 1) that expected UN (aka widespread international) support and authorization — absolutely essential in a non provoked military action engaged in to win over “hearts and minds” in an otherwise highly skeptical and fairly hostile region — did not materialize; and 2) the given pretense for the war, WMD’s, by March of ‘03 based upon facts that were publicly available, was of highly questionable value, and likely incorrect.

So how was it that the Bush supporters/Neo-cons brought us a false pretense war?

Again, what false pretense? That Iraq had WMDs? And why was that, because the Bush Administration knew better than every single major intelligence report, that stated “these are assumptions”? That they knew better despite the fact that there had been no credible weapons inspections in Iraq for many years? They knew better despite the fact that all credible intelligence reports stated it was an educated guess based upon presumptions that required confirmation? They knew better despite the fact that once the world was able to actively engage in said confirmation, inspectors, before we initiated action, were unanimously saying there was no indication of said confirmation?

The fact is, most people thought Iraq had WMD’s. And most — including most media sources (notably and absurdly, as we have discussed, according to the Post’s David Ignatius, because “Democrats did not make the case”) — simply did not pay attention to the objective facts, as they were developing. (An extraordinarily dangerous policy, by the way, when it comes to matters of war.)

To merely summarize that as a “false pretense war” on the part of the Bush administration and supporters alone, when a) we had the facts necessary to make a decent determination at the time, and collectively, as a country, neglected to do so, and b) most people, reasonably, had thought Iraq had WMDs, simply does not capture the true story.

What it does capture, or do, is blame mongering.

And, moreover, what if Iraq had WMDs? Does that make it not a false pretense war? Was Iraq really going to turn them over to mad men bent upon rampant civil destruction on American soil?

International terrorism is a grave, perhaps underrated threat. But the fear of a sovereign state, even surreptitiously, trying to engage in it themselves, or provide the WMDs for such acts, albeit theoretically real, was a little out there as a justification to lose sight of eradicating al-Qaeda, and engaging in the dangerous, wildly costly, and extremely risky task of nation building in a country otherwise unconnected to the original acts.

But let’s look at the second part of that statement that you assert, namely:

“…led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings.”

Technically, this may be accurate. In a “but for” causal sense. But it is statements and ironclad assertions (without effectively showing) like it, which helped keep the country so in the dark in the election of 2004, on the very related issues of Trust, and National Security, in a race which John Kerry essentially lost; on the issues of Trust, and National Security.

That is, by taking the “everyone knows what we know” attitude, few were ever reached who were not otherwise knee jerk against that war and the Bush Administration; and many other Americans, who well would have been reached, were not.

And what caused them not to be reached, more than anything else (aside from Democrats simply not making and showing their case, of course), was the implicit presumption that it was simply a “lie” engaged in by “bad, evil” men who are “responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands.” Or 2004’s earlier version of that.

It lacks credibility with anyone who does not have that same point of view. Today, more people may have that view, but the exact same phenomenon still applies. (And even a media, that should be integrating some of the very insightful, powerful, and important, constitutional points that you make, into their coverage, thus easily dismisses them because they get erroneously, and lazily, thrown into the same category of “absolutist;” which is — as you aptly point out — otherwise so preposterous.)

The fact is, Iraq was ruled by a malevolent dictator, who was in repeated non compliance with UN resolutions. That does not give us the right to unilaterally decide how, when, and by whom — in direct contravention of UN permanent member Security Council vote — such non compliance must be enforced. (Another argument that was ridiculously botched by both the media, and Democrats, as this “debate” waged on throughout 2004; with many to most Americans believing that the UN had voted for this action by essentially passing a non compliance resolution, and that our actions were perfectly legitimate therein. And most Americans, including many Democrats, still think Kerry was a “flip flopper” on the Iraq war; the defining issue of the election.)

But it is fairly relevant. Iraq lived under extremely repressive, dictatorial rule. Many in the country did in fact welcome our efforts to “liberate” them. (Many more did not; and in one of the bigger, lazier, and more dangerous media misconstructions of the decade, Iraqis who may have been misguided in their views as to why we were in Iraq but had the right to believe we were in their country hostilely and thus the sovereign right to take up arms, were mistakenly all lumped in together with culturally psychotic terrorists.)

There was always an underlying theory, which frankly, in some ways made more sense than the idea that Iraq had WMDs, even if Iraq had WMDs. And that was in fact the “nation building” theory. The same thing that Bush had emphatically told the nation, while a candidate against Al Gore back in 2000, that he absolutely would never engage in.

Democrats often confuse the fact that neo-cons and others often offered differing rationales for support, with the mistaken conclusion that therefore all rationales offered must have been invalid — and so tend to prematurely dismiss this. But it was likely a main reason behind the war:

In March of 2003 weapons inspectors were clearly saying “we see no signs of WMDS.” But public support at that moment was high. What was the case against waiting, if WMDS were the real issue? Yet what was the cost, as more and more information that weapons inspectors could not find anything, filtered in, of waiting for those who simply wanted to prosecute this war.

Think about that. Maybe the President himself, and perhaps the Vice President, were so smitten with hatred of Iraq, and perhaps the President with the task of finishing the war that his father prematurely, but understandably, ended — and upon the leader who had also apparently plotted to take his father’s life — was overtaken with the fervent belief that Iraq really had WMDs. But do you believe everyone else in relevant support — or acceptance — of the war was really blind to the basic facts, simply because our media was doing a rather poor job of getting them out there?

The war was terribly managed. Many of the same points “Kerry the alleged flip flopper” — according to conventional wisdom, his opponents, the media, and many in his own party — had advocated, were finally taken up by the Bush Administration, after hesitancy and mismanagement had greatly exacerbated the situation. Then when Kerry, almost completely unsupported by Democrats, tried to make these points in conjunction with the broader, more widely supported idea that this administration was not competent enough to lead on these issues — in classic Orwellian fashion Kerry was continually portrayed as “undermining” our troops. And Democrats permitted it. Why? Because they likely presumed, just as on everything else, that it was so obvious that it was wrong.

Yet it wasn’t obvious. To half the country. And as we’ve briefly seen, excuses were made with respect to that, too. (With some Democrats burying their head even further in the sand by somehow confusing the very legitimate issue of what happened in Ohio, and who really won the election, with the idea that Kerry theoretically may have (or in their minds, “did”) win, with the still stark reality that almost half the country did not get these points — because they were not shown; merely presumed, to be “obvious.”)

There was an exceptionally strong case to be made that the Iraq action, at the time, and in the fashion that we were undertaking it, was both strategically unsound, and an unwise move. (I actually attempted to explain why, in a failed attempt to get an Op-Ed published in the Washington Post around February of 2003). And to much of the rest of the world, our engagement in Iraq represented a fairly threatening, bullying action, by the most powerful country on earth, who had apparently just decided that international law and accords were discretionary, based upon the idea of significant WMD presence — when shortly before the action was initiated, weapons inspectors, conducting valid weapons inspections, were saying they were not finding anything.

But the cause was not for oil (that is a seemingly far fetched claim that also makes little practical sense). It was to create freedom for Iraqis (those not killed in the process), no matter that it is not necessarily our right to do so, or that we may have done so largely because we believed it was in our interests. Aside from the terrible management, the nearly as bad media coverage (and “opponent” response both leading up to and in the first year afterward, including the allowance of those on the right and almost constantly in the media to completely commingle the action, in the public dialogue, with our efforts in Afghanistan), the “war” was not this highly criminal, completely evil endeavor as it is frequently made out to be, and in which characterization you somewhat engage as well.

More importantly, to claim that we “relied” upon the Bush Administration’s ostensible claims of “special information” is somewhat far-fetched, even if “it” has become the conventional “left,” and perhaps even media wisdom to which you seem to have automatically attuned. (Let alone in consideration of the yellowcake fiasco. And there was evidence of this prior to late March of ‘03).

My bottom line point to you is that in an otherwise excellent column, you exhibit a lot of the same “everybody knows what we know and if you don’t know this or see it you can’t be serious” tendencies that have kept otherwise important messages and facts from gaining the widespread traction, let alone saturation, that they need. And the idea that thinking that “morally repugnant and indecent ideas” have to always be objectively known (even in those case where they in fact are morally repugnant and indecent) — when if they were, we would not as a nation be having the discussion in the first place — whereas it is otherwise okay to curse and scream instead of making the case that needs to be made, is a big part of the reason why.

Maybe it’s all right to express these “views” this way. But it is exactly this which has helped to lead to the unnecessary, and increasingly shrill, and counterproductive polarization that has materialized on the web — the same counterproductive polarization that perhaps, as part of it, you don’t seem to fully realize is not adding to the debate in the manner the self echoing reverberation chamber believes it to be.

As exhibit A, consider the fact that just a few days before this column appeared, you wrote about how for so many years, the media had “no checks;” but how now today bloggers and commenters are “checking” it and making it better! Without any apparent awareness that the media has gotten worse, or how getting an occasional fact corrected in an increasing sea of bad, groupthink, and skewed reporting, is not the big picture. The big picture is why incredibly ridiculous errors (such as that committed by NY Times reporter Robert Mackay ) are occurring, and it is precisely because Democrats, and the so called “bloggers/commenters” are not acting as the broad check that you want to think that they are, and which “big picture” can easily be perpetuated by always just blaming the media, and “evil, lying” people on the Right.

And it perpetuates the direction this country is headed in. (What will be the sob story when Democrats, when they lose control of Congress in 2010, after having been absolutely demolished in national elections most of this decade not by Republicans, but often by Far Right Republicans, while running against three exceedingly untrustworthy national campaigns that nevertheless won twice (three times among the white vote) based upon trust more than anything else?)

What type of blame game will take shape then? What type of self righteous cursing and justification of incivility will take place: justification that undermines the one real thing — since they can’t sell and spin as nearly as well as those on the Right — Democrats have going for them, and that is reasonable debate and discussion, focusing in on the actual facts.

What defines “reasonable,” as there is no other objective way to do so, is not the points made, but the degree to which they are supported (or appear to be supported) and the degree of graciousness, respect, and civility with which they are conveyed. If not necessarily to one’s opponents, at least to, most importantly of all, the American people themselves. And this is what is at the root of all of this — which Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler sometimes writes of; Democrats talking down to them. And taking them for granted, treating American voters either like they already know everything, or if they don’t, dismissing the need to reach them.

And one classic example of that is the idea, of course, that it is okay to “curse,” “shout”: and so forth, so long as you are right. But here’s the catch. If the American people, not just the self reverberating echo chamber, knew that you were right? There’d be no perceived need to “curse” and shout,” would there be. Reach them, and reach outside of that chamber.
 ____________________________________