Goldfarbism of the Day
UPDATE BELOW:
I’m going to write more about this in a post to come about right-wing response to Obama’s Cairo speech, but for now I give you this sentence, written by Michael Goldfarb, as an illustration of how far we have come (and not in a good sense):
The president seems to genuinely believe that dialogue, and not threats, coercion, and violence, are the best way to resolve the world problems.
I was born in July, 1950, about 10 days after the Korean War started. I came of age at the height of the Vietnam War. I grew up with my parents’ memory of the Holocaust and World War II. So it’s no exaggeration to say that war has been the background of my entire life. Obviously, this is true for many others besides myself. Always before, in any earlier part of my life, during my childhood hearing about the Nazis and the war (back when “the war” meant World War II), during the Vietnam War, which my parents strongly opposed, and even during the violent conflicts of the 1990s, such as the Gulf War and the Balkan Wars, I remember people who supported whatever war happened to be going on at that time saying: “Nobody wants war. Nobody likes war. You’d have to be a loonytoons to like war.” And then the punch line: “But sometimes… [drum roll, please] war is necessary.”
I remember lots of people back then expressing the opinion that violence was not a solution. Even people who supported the war of whatever moment it was would at least give lip service to the notion that violence is not a solution. There was even a concept back then called “conflict resolution.” Nobody I knew sneered at it, even if they felt it wasn’t going to work. I mean, it would be like sneering at the idea that love is grand. Lots of people may be cynical about the possibilities of love, but nobody is going to say that love is bad and alienation is good.
That’s why statements like Goldfarb’s shock me so much. I can easily imagine the adults of my youth and my young adulthood saying things like, “_________ [fill in the blank] seems to genuinely believe that threats, coercion, and violence, and not dialogue, are the best way to resolve the world’s problems.” But never the opposite. They might not think it easy, or likely, that dialogue could solve the world’s problems, but they certainly agreed that it was the better, or the best, way.
But to Goldfarb, and many, many others on his ideological side of the fence, dialogue is not even a desirable or positive goal to strive for. Dialogue is not good. Dialogue is bad. Dialogue may be okay between Americans, in the United States, but not anywhere else in the world. Americans, in other words, are the only humans on God’s beautiful earth who are capable of dialogue, or value it at all.
This is the pass we have gotten to. Those of us with common sense take it for granted that threats, coercion, and violence are the best way to resolve conflict and solve the world’s problems. I mean, obviously. That said, there are yet some people — like, apparently, Barack Obama — who believe that dialogue is the better way.
UPDATE: When I logged on this morning, I saw that Michael Goldfarb has edited the sentence I quoted above in response to my criticism. The sentence now reads:
The president seems to genuinely believe that dialogue, and not threats, coercion, and violence, are the best * is the only way to resolve the world’s problems. More than that, he believes that history bears this out[.]
At the end of the post, Michael now adds the following explanation:
* This was very poorly phrased and not what I intended to say. Of course dialogue is wonderful and indeed preferable to the use of coercion or force. It is Obama’s certainty that “violence is a dead end” that I object to. My apologies to anyone who quite reasonably assumed otherwise.
I still disagree with Michael in that I do not object to Obama’s certainty that violence is a dead end. I believe that violence, in the long run, is a dead end, even though it may seem to accomplish something positive in the short run. But Michael’s clarification makes a significant difference. Believing that violence can sometimes accomplish lasting good, and thus is not a dead end, is quite a different proposition from believing that violence is better than dialogue, or a more desirable way of resolving conflict. I appreciate Michael making that distinction. Good for him.
Also, thank you to DaGoat in comments for pointing to Michael’s change. If he had not done so, I probably would not have seen it.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “Goldfarbism of the Day”
Let's face the truth, Kathy:
Most of the right wing fascists amongst us would rather kick somebody they disagree with in the face before acknowledging their point of view. It's what they know. Sometimes the “kick in the face” is rhetorical instead of physical. Witness Cheney's response to Dick Clarke's op-ed. The noose is tightening around his neck and he knows it. Kick away, asshole.
The GOP wants to control people's lives and force others to the GOP's will and beliefs, be it the GOP's beliefs on issues ranging from pro-life to anti same-sex marriage on Christianity, etc.
The GOP sees the world in terms of black and white, us. v. them. In everyone different the GOP sees a threat that they must conquer.
I sometimes think many Republicans (certainly the leaders) are stuck in pre-adolescence, like a spoiled schoolyard bully who wants everything his way and when he doesn't get it he kicks, screams and picks fights with others because he feels he can get away with it.
It is one thing to use force expeditiously to protect one's home, family, community and country. It is another thing to use force just because you can especially when you know no one will challenge you and your ends is not to protect, but rather to dominate.
That's what the GOP wants to do: dominate and if they believe they have the power to do so, they will use it. When others want consensus, the GOP will call them weak because for the GOP power means physical might, not the strength of one's mind and the power of thought.
Why diplomacy and an attempt at conflict resolution is considered by some to be “soft” or “weak”, I'll never understand. Threats, coercion and violence solving world's problems? Is Goldfarb serious? This is what CAUSES the vast majority of the world's problems. I think war is sometimes necessary when all other attempts at diplomacy have been exhausted, but it most certainly shouldn't be the first plan on the list when dealing with a problem.
I don't understand what Goldfarb and the Republicans are trying to suggest when they criticize using diplomacy where it's possible. Shouldn't a nation that sees itself as “Christian” and morally superior try to defuse volatile situations when possible instead of inciting them to become worse? What is their idea, honestly? Are we supposed to force other countries into our submission just to prove America has the biggest, bravest cojones of the whole world? Isn't that what terrorists are trying to do: force others to submit to their will through fear, threats and violence? For a country that promotes democracy and freedom and thinks itself the moral compass of the world, becoming the arm-twisting and oppressive boot on the neck of other countries is really not the image one would want to project. Especially all the outrage this country had on the torture issue – the majority of the American people appear to believe torturous coercion and force is not the way this country does things. Trying to solve things peacefully where possible helps soothe some of the dangerous anger and frustration towards us in the world. Does the right wing honestly not see that trying to fix some of the issues between us and those that want to destroy us actually keeps us SAFER than just bombing the hell out of everyone that challenges us? Sometimes there is more strength shown through restraint and discretion than active force. And a lot of the time, it's harder to bomb and demonize the people who are being nice to you.
Heh, welcome to today's episode of “Kick the Republicans”,
If you read the link, it looks like the passage in question has been edited since Kathy quoted it. Part of it has been struck out, and the word “best” has been replaced by “only”. Goldfarb added the explanation “This was very poorly phrased and not what I intended to say. Of course dialogue is wonderful and indeed preferable to the use of coercion or force. It is Obama's certainty that “violence is a dead end” that I object to.”
But even without his clarification it was obvious Kathy and others had taken the quote out of the context of the rest of the post. If you read the entire article Goldfarb talks about the necessity of using force in the past and the likelihood that success will involve more than just talk in the future. He ends with the sentence ” Sometimes that will take more than just talk.”.
Out of context?
By clicking on the link in the update, you'll see Goldfarb changed his post specifically in response to this very post of Kathy's.
He specifically says, “My apologies to anyone who quite reasonably assumed otherwise.”
Even he thinks the original quote went too far.
I'd have to disagree GeorgeS, to me the rest of the article made it clear he was not discounting the use of diplomacy. Of course I did not read the article before it was edited so you could be right.
StockBoy,
Help me out here.
I certainly don’t want to belong to a party that wants to control people's lives and force others to their will and beliefs, so I thought I would make a list of those things the two parties want to control in order to make a rational decision on which party to align with.
You have mentioned a few items to start with:
Abortion – There is an element of the GOP that wants abortion outlawed. Although the GOP had full control for a number of years, no legislation was put forward to achieve that goal, but it’s a big deal for approximately 22% of registered Republicans.
Gay Marriage – George Bush advocated civil unions instead of marriage. Dick Cheney was OK with marriage. Most Republican (as do most of the public) oppose gay marriage.
Religion – The GOP is pro-religion. There has never been any legislation proposed to inflict this tendency towards religion on anyone else (to my knowledge), but I do find some talk of god aggravating.
So, right now my list shows two things that the GOP wants to deny to the public – unfettered, no restriction abortions and gay marriage.
Now, just to be fair, can you think of anything that liberals or the Democrat party want to deny the public? Anyone? Jump in on either list and let’s see if we can figure this out together.
The Republicans are a three legged stool and a big problem is the social/religious conservatives.
This crowd pissed their diapers when the SCOTUS reversed Texas sodomy laws.
This crowd pissed their diapers when the Darwin trumps Jesus the lawn worker.
This crowd pissed their diapers when the Cheech sells bongs. Yet, fetal alcohol syndrome babies are gods intelligent design.
…
Kathy
I would disagree with Obama, violence is not a dead end, it's an unending treadmill.
Be it a local blood feud or International policy, violence makes partisans of victims.
HemmD, great line “Violence makes partisans of victims”