The Death of Imagination

"gay marriage will destroy the very foundation of american society"

From:

Thank you, Mr "I should know what a real dictatorship looks like", for that complete non sequitur.

From:

that comment was about the use of rhetoric, not dictatorship.

From:

a good rule of thumb is... intelligence is directly proportional to a person's estimate of george w. bush's intelligence.

i think the big problem is that politics is so often fashion... people adopt a political stance the way they adopt a hairstyle. Hating george bush seems really "with it" to some people... like the crappy music they pretend to like. Professing a conservative viewpoint about anything would be like getting caught with The Carpenters in their CD collection... i mean, The Carpenters without a protective coating of irony.

maybe political irony will be the next big thing... adopting contartian positions to show everybody how clever you are.

From:

Whose rhetoric is it? I can find Tom DeLay quoted as saying that gay marriage will "undermine the very foundation" of American society, but no one way saying it will destroy it.

From:

as you can see, i did not attribute it to anyone. my point is that rhetoric is cheap--everyone does it.

From:

So you don't think there are any respectable limits to rhetoric? I'm attempting to draw a line here: Saying someone or something is threatening basic civil liberties or the foundations of society is usually hyperbolic, but I see it as far removed from equating someone with one of the evilest men ever known. Saddam Hussain can legitimately be compared to Hitler; he openly emulated the man. But a deeply-religious, freely-elected moderate leader of a pluralistic, democratic state?

Despite how my snappy description makes it sound, I didn't come to the conclusion that this guy was out of touch with reality on the basis of a single poster he made. He goes on in his journal at length about how Bush is a "dictator". I don't think he's exaggerrating for effect; I think that, like Delay, he actually believes his own rhetoric.

From:

Bush mit Hitler zu vergleichen ist voll neben der Spur. Die deutsche Justizministerin, die so einen Vergleich gemacht hat, musste zu Recht ihren Schreibtisch räumen. Ich finde es auch unsinning, ihn einen Diktator zu nennen ...

aber ich kann ihn nicht ausstehen und ich finde schon, dass er ein übler Demagoge ist. Sein vor sich hingetragener aufgeblähter Patriotismus und seine Instrumentalisierung des christlichen Gottes sind mir unerträglich.

From:

0595.livejournal.com

But I love The Carpenters, and no one is more "with it" than me.

Herr Shrub like totally sux too!!!!!!!

From:

i think the really hip position is liking Sonic Youth for the sake of irony...;)

From:

the limits of rhetoric are as high as the general populace will let it. we all know this is as mercurial as fads. why attempt to draw the line? people with agendas will say what they want and apologize later.

==

Ferdinand Marcos was a freely elected leader too. it turns out that he gathered enough power to become a dictator. although the US political structure will prevent Bush or any other American president from becoming a dictator, that doesn't mean his actions may not be construed as a propensity for doing what he pleases. put Bush and his deeply held religious beliefs and make him the president of Iraq and he might just have Islamic traditions encoded into Iraq's constitution.

besides, who says being a dictator is a bad thing? Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew was pretty much a dictator and he's been credited with that country's economic rise.

From:

0595.livejournal.com

hilarious

From:

So vielleicht meint der Mensch nur, den Bush mit "Hitler dem Demogogen" statt "Hitler dem Fuehrer" oder "Hitler dem Massenmoerder" zu vergleichen?

From:

I like to separate the world into those who I can engage constructively and those I can't. When you say "Bush = Hitler", you're really just screaming and ranting. I don't see how any productive dialogue is possible at that point.

If all you care about is economics, then there's nothing particularly bad about being a (progressive, competent, technocratic) dictator. However, we modern Westerners have this perverse affection for something called "human rights".

From:

geez... this guy even talks like hitler...:(

From:

I think I understand the point you're making, but I still find the humour questionable on the same.

From:

it was just a dumb joke about the outburst of german

From:

Singapore is peaceful, orderly, and clean. However, they cannot chew gum.

From:

Ich verstehe nicht was du meinst? Ist das Zustimmung oder Ironie. Ist es ein sprachliches Missverständnis? Ich bin etwas ratlos.

Gibt es keine Demagogen jenseits der Diktatur oder von Hitler? Das könnte ich nicht nachvollziehen.

Ich habe heute einen Wahlclip von Bush gesehen, wie er mit gestählter Brust dahin schreitet und wie Ground Zero eingeblendet und instrumentalisiert wird (wie er suggeriert: Schaut, ich bin bereit Kriege zu führen und Euch zu schützen, dass so etwas erneut passiert). Ist dir das nicht unangenehm anzuschauen? Ist das nicht eine Form der Massenverführung und somit der Demagogie?

From:

Do I understand right that you say I'm talking like Hitler?

From:

not anymore...:)

it was a joke about the fact that your comments were in german (i.e., "talk like")

apparently it wasn't a very funny joke.

From:

Emphasis on the "dumb". The kneejerk association of German and Nazis is so 5th grade; sniggering about it even moreso. If you've been reading my journal for any length of time, you should know that I occasionally post in German. Get over it.

From:

Gibt es keine Demagogen jenseits der Diktatur oder von Hitler?

Leider nicht!

From:

Du verstehst es mich zu überraschen!

Sorry, aber ich denke du bist auf dem Holzweg!

Demagoge
Von griech.: Volksführer. Der Begriff hatte im antiken Athen ursprünglich eine positive Bedeutung und wurde für einen Politiker gebraucht, der sich auf die Volksmassen stützte und deren Interessen vertrat. Heute meint Demagogie ausschließlich negativ den Volksverführer, der es versteht, durch seine polarisierenden Behauptungen und emotionalen Appelle eine unpolitische Menschenmasse im Sinne seiner Ziele zu manipulieren und zu mobilisieren.

Harenberg Lexikon

Da steht nichts von Hitler oder Diktatur, obwohl die Demagogie im Dritten Reich kaum zu überbieten ist.

Aber zu meinen, die Demokratie schütze perse gegen demagogische Tendenzen, wäre ja naiv.

Wenn Bush von der Achse des Bösen faselt und versucht, Angst vor weiteren Terroranschlägen zu schüren; wenn er sich damit die Rückendeckung für kriegerische Aktivitäten in breiten Teilen der Bevölkerung verschafft, ist das etwa keine Demagogie?

From:

aye-aye, captain...:(

From:

spookyfruit.livejournal.com

I would say 'may' prevent.

-sf-

From:

Bei uns heisst das "Jawohl!"

From:

Ranting aside, I have read a couple of serious articles comparing the Bush regime with the rise of the 3rd Reich, and friends of my dad's who were there at the time have also made comparisons (although I don't know how much you can trust the political perceptions of people who were children at the time, but they can certainly talk about the atmosphere and social trends with knowledge). Mostly what I hear them saying is - it's not anywhere like Nazism right now, but keep an eye on it cause this is how it starts.

From:

How what starts? If Bush wins a second term and talk resumes of lifting the term limitation on the office of President, then maybe I'll start to worry. As long as all it takes to get Bush & co. out of office is for a few more whiners to get off their duffs and vote someone else in, I think comparisons to Fascist regimes are fairly overblown. Weimer Germany, freshly-divorced Hungary, goddess help us Italy--they just didn't have the track record for democracy that the USA does. If our fragile republic somehow survived the gross abuses, corruption, and massive vote fraud of the robber baron era, I don't see why it shouldn't weather the comparatively clean and calm Naughties without descending into an orgy of demogoguery and death camps.

From:

Yup, that's pretty much the argument, and I agree with it.

From:

Alternatively, I never knew democracy because the real coup happened in 1980 and the Clinton Era was just a mass deception to lull us all into a false sense of security. Now that I think about it, for a so-called Democrat, he acted an awful lot like a Republican...

From:

princeofcairo.livejournal.com

The Empire Never Ended.

FDR is still president, and we're all just things in his dream.

From:

Well one might argue whether it was Democracy or The Capitalist State, or just a plain old Oligarchy.

But I think when compared with the likes of Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Nazi Germany, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, or ... any of dozens of other recent examples ... it's pretty clear that Bush VS Clinton is greenish-blue VS bluish-green.

From:

Wasn't he the one who had a thing for pantyhose?

I guess if he's dreaming my life it would account for all the drag queens and theatre people.

From:

So, in your view, how long has Australian been a democracy? Clearly not for all those years when Aboriginals were denied equal rights, a period that ended...um...exactly when?

From:

vokzal.livejournal.com

Well, dictator might be a bit strong. But it is worth noting that non-US-citizens have less rights when in the USA now than they used to. I would wonder if international tourism has dropped at all. But maybe it is just my friends.

And I will be worried if various parts of the Patriot act don't go away.

From:

aadroma.livejournal.com

I agree with you here; I have quite a bit of questioning on just what kind of a leg foreign relations will be standing upon after Bush's run in the White House. It's not just your friends; I have folks in Asia who are leery of visiting ...

"Dictator"'s REALLY strong, and it's sad that a lot of people don't realize that to throw around potent terms like that, yet give nothing to support it upon just causes that person's argument to cave in upon itself.

From:

I have seen figures recently showing that foreign tourism in the USA has dropped. Of course, I'm still not sure if foreign travel has returned to its pre-9/11 levels yet or not. One indication that Homeland Security is having an effect on travel is the number of formal protests from countries (such as Brazil) that object to having their citizens treated as suspects when they enter the country. Of course, the inconvenience and delays could be more off-putting for most travelers than the humilation of fingerprinting, etc.

I'd be more worried about the Patriot Act, too, if the judiciary hadn't been chipping away at it for some time now. However, before you lay the blame for it at Bush's feet, ask yourself (1) how many Democrats voted for it and (2) under the circumstances, would Kerry (or Gore or Clinton) have refused to sign it into law? It is tempting, however, to vote for ABB just to see the satanic John Ashcroft removed from office.

From:

androkles got me thinking it might be an interesting discussion to try to determine how limited franchise or political influence has to be before a "democracy" becomes an "oligarchy". I suspect each of us draws the boundary somewhere slightly different.

From:

vokzal.livejournal.com

> "Dictator"'s REALLY strong

I suppose I ought to be amused that its my German friends who have been most likely to attack Bush on that front... And usually with good reason.

Hmm. I suppose they like attacking Rumsfeld too. For being foreigners, they tend to know about things happening here better than I do...

From:

vokzal.livejournal.com

Well, properly normed and adjusted figures would be nice... Or at least more useful.

Patriot Act: Good question. I'll give the cynical answer.

It isn't just the visitors, but also the immigrants that aren't actual citizens yet for whatever reason. They've been getting a lot more shit and a lot less protection lately... Although granted, I've practically burnt out on all this, so I've blithely forgotten details.

The visitors can at least stay away. I'm not particularly keen on sending friends back to certain death, or even mundane nastiness.

From:

This would essentially be an argument about what each of those terms means, would it not?

From:

his-regard.livejournal.com

Blogger Kim du Toit echoes these same sentiments, and then some, in a post after seeing Dachau.

From:

No, since neither of them has a fixed, intrinsic meaning. I think the closest agreement you can get on the definition of "democracy" is that it means some form of government where "the people" are nominally in charge and not a single leader or small cabal. But who are "the people"? How many have to be involved, how directly, and how deeply? All of these measures are more-or-less up-for-grabs. I know an anarchist who considers anything less than universal direct democracy "undemocratic". I also know no shortage of people who have little trouble describing a USA run exclusively by free white male property owners a "democracy". "Oligarchy" is, literally, "rule by a few". How many is "few"? A simple minority? Less than 10% of the population? Less than 1%? Does it matter if they are representative of the general populace or not? Etc.

From: