Refusing to apply the logic of dreams
Cross-posted to Random Fate.
—
It has been a while since I have posted anything thoughtful or even remotely original. I wish I could say it was entirely due to changes in my life-circumstances, with my new wife, new children, and new priorities, but I cannot attribute my lack of commentary entirely to other priorities. While they are important, these other priorities have not ruled my life exclusively. I did indeed have the choice to write when and if I needed to. I simply have not chosen to because I have been too exhausted, and not solely due to family issues.
I have continued to read other weblogs daily, and although I discover as time passes that more self-described right-wingers are finally recognizing the tendencies of the current administration that I pointed out two years ago, I find no joy in this trend.
Why?
For one, the fact that it has taken literally two years to arrive at the realization that the Bush administration is so incompetent it puts our nation at risk, two years for people whom I regarded as rational despite having differing political views, those such as the Commissar of The Politburo Diktat (now version 2.0, possibly relating to his conversion from a purely partisan viewpoint to one aimed at what is best for the nation, as I have held all along despite being named partisan even though I didn’t follow lockstep with ANY party), and the delay has discouraged me, notwithstanding the conversions at this late date.
Another reason I am losing hope is those who have not recognized that we are on the wrong path. There is a minority, troublingly large, who still support the actions of the administration to the bitter end, those such as the bloggers at Power Line who desperately seek to find some partisan explanation for the lack of action in the Foley/Congressional Page matter that they can lay at the feet of the Democratic Party, despite the abundance of evidence of the implicit approval of the Republican leadership of the Congress. These, the willfully blind, are now completely ignoring the deteriorating situation in Iraq, formerly the apple of their eyes, instead expressing positively orgasmic pleasure in the deaths of supposed “terrorists” who are not attacking the US because we are “defeating them over there,” despite the fact that they were not terrorists BEFORE we occupied “over there…”
So, where does a rational commentator go, especially when their time is compressed and consumed by more immediate matters related to family?
What does a rational commentator do when the allure of non-partisan computer games like the various versions of Starfleet Command appeal far more than any seemingly futile attempt to persuade towards rationality those who have abandoned even a pretence of logical thought?
My answer?
It has certainly not been to attempt a useless exercise in posting to persuade, since it seems that no one even tries to think outside their partisan box any more.
While it may not seem the case to those who read my weblog regularly, I do indeed try to think outside my own preconceptions. In my work I have come to be known as “Jack the project killer” because I tend to recommend the termination of projects I have been put in charge of, even if it seems “career limiting” according to semi-cynical parlance.
Why?
Because I evaluate each program with an eye towards cost versus benefit, with each side of the equation aimed towards the needs of the company and not my personal preferences. My very ruthlessness towards these evaluations has gained me credibility when I either recommend or advise against any project.
I refuse to apply the logic of dreams to attractive concepts, despite the allure of the possibilities that the ideas promote among the dreamers.
There is a balance that needs to be found between the dreamers and those of a more practical bent to make at least part of the dreams reality, and my role to date has been to pull the concepts of the dreamers to something that can indeed be accomplished rather than something that can only be conceived.
Such seems to be my curse, because that which I foresaw two years ago has become a reality today so obvious that even those among the most fervent whom I would label as “right-wingers to the end” have begun to acknowledge that the current nominally right-wing administration and Congressional leadership has not delivered or even really tried to deliver anything close to the “right-wing” agenda.
So, what should I write about?
Those unpersuaded will remain so, those who are becoming disenchanted already have far more reason to be so than I could ever present to them.
I have tried in the past three years of my blogging to provide a non-partisan view that was indeed biased towards my own philosophy, which was not aligned with any party.
For my efforts, I have been labeled many things, whether right-wing, left-wing, liberal, or conservative, all the labels were inadequate to encompass my views, yet despite the arrows hurled by those not capable of conceiving of anything beyond the simple-minded dichotomy of viewpoints that I abandoned three decades ago when I was 12 years old, I have persisted, because I refuse to succumb to the logic of dreams that fulfills wishful thinking and makes absurd arguments plausible.
It must be nice to perceive the world in black-and-white terms, but I cannot do so because I see the “nuances” that were anathema to the Bush administration and its cheerleaders until the most recent intelligence estimate caused them to perceive that presenting the subtleties to be of political advantage. Nuances and subtleties may not satisfy the primal urge for vengeance and visceral fulfillment, but they are necessary conditions to understand how to gain the ultimate victory over our enemies.
Our failure to understand will be our undoing, just as the Romans labeling those they refused to make the effort to understand as “barbarians” set them on the path of decline.
The parallels are obvious to those willing to truly step outside their own canalized methods of thought, but it takes the “hard work” that George W. Bush referred to when he was campaigning for winning a second term as President of the United States.
Perhaps you should consider doing that “hard work” of thinking about the ramifications of our current policies, what could arise if those policies change, and what the long term results could be.
All I ask is that you think for yourself and not follow those who use the logic of dreams.
28 Responses to “Refusing to apply the logic of dreams”
Jack,
You could have saved yourself some time in the writing of this post and just written five words: “See, I told you so” (with the option of adding an exclamation point)
Your version was more eloquent though.
Jack has been consistent. He was one of the first cobloggers on TMV and I invited him because he was so independent. He has never changed any of his values to score a point for one side or another. There are people like Jack in both parties and who don’t belong to parties. The question is whether they are ascending or descending and we’ll get the answer in coming weeks and months.
Jack,
Dont despair – Ballon Juice and BelgraviaDispatch have also blogged on this. CQ also reports on falsehoods whemm he sees them, not enough though. These two site are partisans that supported Bush at the time you first brought the falsehoods and incompetence to light. Don’t despair, you have two hands to write with, Mike Weiskopf left one arm in Iraq reporting on the “facts”. Don’t let Armstong Williams, Jeff Gannon and Lincoiln Group win this one.
I was only being snarky because I read the post some guised, subtle gloating. It was subtle, and I sincerely meant the eloquent comment, but still not easy to take for a reader who came late to the conclusion of criticizing the administration. In no way was I suggesting that Jack hasn’t been consistent, just that he is giving a bit of a dig to those of us who had to reverse our opinions.
CS IMO you are more of a fence sitter, John Cole at BJ is a rabid Republican who rants on this Gang. Have you read some of the articles and comments over there?
No, I haven’t. I think what you don’t get about people like me (and I think it was you who questioned AustinRoth about this too) is that we just distrust both parties about equally. The Republicans may have more dirt on their hands right now, but personally I think that’s because they’ve been the ones who had the opportunities to dirty themselves. It’s not hard to stay clean when you aren’t doing anything. But put the Dems back in power and I think we’ll see more dirt on their side. That is why I’m not rabidly anti-Bush or anti-Republican right now, because I’m only reluctantly acceptant of the idea that the opposition party will correct the situation (it’s more of balancing one wrong with another, which isn’t my definition of a real correction). In addition, my political philosophies definitely lean right, so it’s been a dilemma for some time now; cast a vote for a party that ostensibly believes what I do but is screwing it up, or vote for the party that directly opposes my views.
Rudi,
In thinking about this a bit further, I guess I’d say you are right in describing me as a fence sitter. Sometimes there’s just too much bulls*%t in the pastures on both sides of the fence.
Jack- Keep up the good work. Never has the truth been more of a prized commodity, as it gets increasingly rarely seen or heard. I believe a hard look at who we are, what we believe in, what we’ve done and where we are going is the only thing that can save us.
CS Yes you are a fence-sitter. If you think both parties are equally bad, it is best not to give either of them unchecked power. The country functioned well under Clinton and the Republican congress, and under Reagan and Tip O’ Neill’s Democratic congress (though I disagreed with Reagan on quite a bit).
Kim
Recent events are pushing me off the fence in that direction; I was just responding to Rudi because I think he is puzzled when people like me aren’t criticizing the administration loudly enough. As to the historical comparisons, it’s apples to oranges IMO because of the personalities involved and the toxic uberpartisan environment of today.
But the uberpartisan environment existed in the ’90′s as well- Clinton had to work with a Republican congress that tried to get him out of office through Ken Starr’s investigation which turned from Whitewater to Paula Jones to Lewinsky in its efforts to impeach him. He had a 70% popularity rating in 1998 and was able to work with them despite this. I have no doubt he would have performed at a much higher level if he didn’t have the threat of impeachment, but the government still functioned better than it is today.
Kim,
I’d have to review all of the timing, but my recollection is that they were mainly working well together during Clinton’s first term and then it deteriorated.
CS,
Alot was done because Gingrich and Clinton actually talked in private and did somethings. Gingrich tried a powerplay and shut down government, Clinton used this to gain public support and POTUS power. When did Clinton steal the welafre reform. Tip ONeil and Reagan talked and joked around as two Irishmen. Let the Democrats in and have Busg prove he real is a Uniter.
Kinda off topic but just curious about the Starfleet Command reference, do you play Jack? I still do.
I agree Rudi! Bush won’t do anything to offend his base unless forced to. Most of his policies directly benefit them and work to the detriment of the 50% who didn’t vote for him. Shutting out the Democrats has allowed the GOP to become bloated, complacent, arrogant and corrupt. Divided government is our best hope.
Rudi,
You proved my point about the personalities. Do you see Pelosi and Bush joking around with each other? It takes two to tango if you want some unity; it ain’t gonna happen before ’08, that’s for sure.
Chuut: Yes, I do play Starfleet Command II, and Orion Pirates. It’s fun to blow stuff up (in a virtual world, that is) at the end of a long day.
CS – Bush campaigned as a Uniter and promised not to do nation building. He has used 911 as an excuse to bring partisanship to unprecidented levels. Why question Pelosi when Bush sold you a car saying it runs smooth and will take you to Democracy for All. The car is burning oil, we import, and is pulling to the Right when Unitedland is down the Middle. He never had the vote consensus of 1968 or 1984. Those were years all Republican supporters should remember, his mandate was like 1960 and Daley stole that one.
Jack: Excellent post!
In many ways the current political situation is like a friend in the downward spiral of addiction. The end result was predictable years in advance, but persuading and addict to stop his self destructive behavior is futile. He has to hit bottom before he stops.
Reality always gets the final say, regardless of anyone politics.
Al-Anon has a saying “Let go and let God.�
Strange words for an agnostic to use, but it fits my current mood. I suspect it will work for you as also.
CS – I agree with the distrust of both parties comment, and leaning more to the right than left as my philosophy, too.
Kim – I definitely agree with split governement, particularily after the past few years. I did a few posts about that recently.
As for fence sitter, I really don’t think that is true about me, but the impression that I am is my fault. What is closer to the truth is that I like point out hypebole by the left (I do lean right after all), because the fun part is they never think they are over the top and get all worked up and indignant when you tweak them (it is like teasing a little sister, which I used to love to do as well). However, in my defense, I have also verbally bitch-slapped (oh, how non-PC a phrase!) those on the right when they get stupid too.
Overall, these days I have a lot more trouble with Bush, Congress, SCOTUS and the atacks on personal liberties and our Constitutional rights than I show. I probably should be more forthcoming, but man, when I do Snarky is going to rake me over the coals for being two-faced!
Given that I believe that the government monitors the more popular and political blogs such as this one (and I really do) and their comments (especially their comments sections, because they tend to be more radicalized), I am somewhat concerned about expressing what I really feel on a regular basis (which is a damning indictment of the current state of affairs).
If you read my post where I quoted Jefferson, that gets very close to where I really come from, and what I think needs to happen, and may be inevitable. I also recentlys aid that I think what is happening with the government is a deeper game than Repubs vs. Dems.
Go back, read the news and position statements of what the two parties claim to have stood for. Over the past 40 years, it is like seeing 1984 come to life, which is what I fully believe is happening right before our eyes, and with bi-partisen support and planning, despite the rehtoric. Very Machevillion stuff, IMHO (and now you know, I am a paraniod sum-a-bitch).
I said it before, and I will say it again now, I am more radical than I pretend. In the truest sense of the word ‘Radical’.
Well, I felt myself getting more radical-if you want to call it that, when the present administration started conflating approval of their policies with one’s love of country. If you love your country but believe that Bush has been wrong about just about everything since he climbed down from that pile of rubble at Ground Zero, where does that leave you? If that makes me a radical-then I am a radical. If AG Gonzales wants to haul me in for comments made on “The Moderate Voice”, well my brother-in-law is a lawyer-I should get a deal on his legal services!
Yes, I mostly have voted Democrat, but I see their faults-they sometimes have an unrealistic worldview and often don’t seem to know how to keep their collective feet out of their mouths. Yes, they would raise taxes, but I never thought the tax cuts represented anything more than “to the victor go the spoils” rewards to the faithful base. But I do believe the Democrats will look out for the middle class and not balance the budget on the backs of the poor the way this administration has. Whoops- not that they’ve balanced the budget lately, LOL.
I have on occasion crossed the aisle to vote for a moderate Republican with solid values, and would do so again if it didn’t lead to them holding the majority in congress.
I guess if I could pick a perfect presidential candidate it would be FDR or Bill Clinton. Both were flexible and could operate comfortably on the world stage. They weren’t afraid to engage our enemies, and were able to solidify alliances with our friends. They didn’t just talk about being compassionate-they passed compassionate policies-but policies that worked in the real world. I admired Clinton for not caving to the left wing on welfare- it was great to see a Democrat take that on. I admired FDR for being able to put strong, smart people from both sides in his cabinet, pit them against each other, then decide after he had heard from both sides. There were a lot of people who hated him for changing the nature of government, but they were able to put that hatred aside and come together during WWII when it was necessary. I think it was because he understood how to be a leader. Both men did things that seem terrible to us now- FDR interned innocent Japanese in concentration camps, Clinton used the White House as his personal pick-up joint. But bottom line-they understood how to govern.
Kim Ritter–
I also find myself wondering if I’m becoming more radical. Then I remember exactly the same thing–the conflation of love of country with love of the current holder of the executive branch.
This is an excellent post, by the way. Jack Grant should post more often!!
Well, um, Jack Grant should post more often–if he would like to.
I’d like to read more of what he has to say.
About the radicalization – I’m sure people recall Michael’s post with the political quiz and how so many were center.
The thing is today the issues do not make you liberal or conservative – it’s who’s “side” your on. And each side cannot see how the other side can have their view. Like Kim – I cannot see how you love Clinton so much. I disagree with your view on his economics as his put me firmly into poverty. But that’s my view based off of my history, you have your view given your history. And likewise some people obviously have difficulty seeing how the tax cuts benefited anyone but the rich. My history – it’s been fantastic and I’m now mid-lower middle class, I’m far from rich, but i’m in an area where I am able to donate to charity again. For instance the original 300 dollar tax cut – my Brother who earned close to 6 figures turned his nose up at it and thought it ridiculous. I was making 7 bucks an hour at the time and it was a complete godsend.
Plus people cannot seem to realize that people may love say – an administrations economics but abhor other things within the same administration. I argue with my mom about it all the time – she’ll mention something and I’ll respond with – so you agreed with everything Clinton did – 100%? (she loves Clinton) That’s typically where the conversation ends – because of course she didn’t.
I think Bush was way too headstrong on use of military, and ruined many chances we as a nation had. – I think Clinton could have used a pair between his legs. (I don’t mean a pair of women). but I also view each presidency on it’s own merits not intertwined.
It’s different views on the same circumstances, views due to our personal history and political preferences. For someone like me I almost always feel like I have to vote for the lesser of two evils as I hold no party affiliation. Heck if anything I probably lean more towards Libertarian.
But in here, some people are – frankly – too stupid to realize that you can like one thing about an Administration – yet not vote for them. They idiotically think because you like one thing – that means your a right-wing nut job, they cannot fathom how you can like one or two things – yet be pissed off about the same administration for other things. To be honest it’s a pretty simple-minded view. For instance I don’t care for Clinton – His economics were horrible for me, I think he lacked in many areas as a President.
But I liked his intervening with the IRA and welfare reform. And sometimes while I’d hate his three sides to a two sided story – sometimes that indecision worked. Mostly in areas he could use his one talent – his charisma, is where he did good. And no i’m not talking about his sleeping around – I could have cared less about that.
It’s just different takes – the radicalization comes in when someone see’s you favoring a certain aspect – and how dare you do that – this Administration sucks – yes they do and I wouldn’t vote for them – but I still like such and such. Or the complete opposite radicalization – how dare you speak out against something in this administration – well no I can if I want, I may like such and such but I really get pissed off about x,y,z.
Heck you don’t have to like what I write here, doesn’t make your beliefs any more valid than mine or the person next door. It’s just the beliefs we have.
You know, I thought if I could really look inside someone else’s head-someone with a different opinion than mine, then I would have a better understanding of the other side, and it would help us all move towards unity. But now I see that unity is like a bad marriage, we may all be able to agree that our survival as a nation is of primary importance, but have split ideas of how to ensure it, or not even agree that it is in jeopardy in the first place. Communication helps, but as Interested points out, its our life experiences that frame our perspective on these issues. So while I see how others think the way they do, I still think exactly the way I did when I started visiting blogs- not one iota of my opinions have changed. In fact, I seem to have hardened on my stances.
When Clinton was President, I couldn’t understand why he had so many enemies. He was a centrist who tried to work with both sides, who had Republicans like David Gergen and Richard Clarke helping him, and who could even work with Newt Gingrich. He was a Democrat who reformed welfare, and who presided over the dot-com boom. Many criticized his use of the military, but I know that he is well-loved in Bosnia for what he did, and IMO, he actually did spread democracy in that part of the world, and fought the genocide there. It was a purely humanitarian gesture, and I loved his idealism. Many say it was because of the scandal that led to his impeachment, but I think the hatred of him predated that.
In the same manner, I have never understood why those that love Bush would fall on their swords for him. No matter what he has done to the country, the die-hards are there for him. I guess they think that he is finally standing up to the terrorists, but before 9/11 it wasn’t a big priority for either Clinton or Bush. And he seems mesmerized by his desire to remake Iraq in our own image, despite the reality on the ground. I don’t understand why the very people who objected to Clinton’s humanitarian mission in Bosnia, supported Bush’s debacle in Iraq. We obviously are no safer because of it, and the Iraqi people are worse off because of it. Yes , Saddam was a monster, but so is Kim Jong Il, and so are countless other dictators in the world, some of whom we have supported with aid and arms, and some of whom we still support. Do any of his supporters remember that he has broken almost all of his campaign promises? Is it enough for those Americans that they are doing better due to his tax cuts? I’d hate to think that our reputation in the world means so little to us, or that we no longer hold our politicians accountable for anything.
Interested,
I’m not sure if you or anyone else is still reading this comment section, but I enjoyed your last comment. It reflects a pet peeve of mine, what I generally call “baby in the bathwater phenomenon”. The phrase “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” is perhaps the most inane expression in the English language, but I wish there was a better term for this type of thinking. The way I see it, people constantly see one reason to criticize a philosophy or group, and then they believe that the entire philosophy or organization should be condemned (and abandoned!) for that one flaw. You gave excellent examples of this in modern political situations but I also see it all over the place: condemnation of all organized religion because churches have gone astray or because they have flaws in their teachings, for example.
Thank you C.Stanley
CS- Who’s the “baby in the bathwater” in your comment? Are you saying that you still support Bush and the Republican party, because even if they’ve had a few recent problems with scandal and policy failure, they still represent overall, your belief system? Just curious.
No, Kim, but to use that example, there is a tendency to arrive at the conclusion that Republican ideals and principles are wrong because they’ve been badly implemented by this administration. For example, I still think that Iraq War was the right decision, if it had been planned and implemented properly. And I still think fiscal conservatism is the best policy, but it hasn’t been implemented at all by recent Republicans in power.
So, to answer your question, no, I think that the Bush administration IS the bathwater, but the baby in there is the policy that they should have been following.