Views » July 13, 2008 » Web Only
Dogmatic Rhetoric is Self-Defeating (cont’d)
To honestly ask this question is not to, in any way, excuse or justify the war in Iraq or any of the other horrendous policies that this administration has pursued. The purpose is to try to break through the kind of rote thinking that is so prevalent on the left.
Instead of simply assuming that the leading officials in the Bush administration are driven by consciously malevolent or diabolically sinister motives (as so many on the left do), I think the progressive movement needs to take a more nuanced approach when it comes to trying to understand the mindsets of our primary adversaries, i.e. Bush, Cheney and other leading figures in the Republican party.
For starters, we should avoid the temptation to internalize dogmatic caricatures of Bush and his inner circle. For once we fall into this ideological trap, it then becomes very difficult to modulate our rhetoric in a way that enhances, rather than impedes, our ability to communicate with Americans outside the progressive movement.
One way to avoid dogmatic assumptions is to read some of the books that present nuanced and complex accounts of how those who have formulated and carried out U.S. foreign policy during the last eight years actually see the world.
For example, in Rise of the Vulcans, James Mann makes it clear that Bush and his closest advisers have been pursuing policies that are extremely harmful to the United States and much of the rest of the world. Yet, he also writes that they all “believed that American power and ideals are, on the whole, a force for good in the world.”
In Imperial Designs, Gary Dorrien presents an even harsher critique of neocons than Mann does. Yet he too concludes that “the neocons genuinely believe that the maximal use of American power is nearly always good for the world.”
Having a better understanding of how our adversaries really see the world can only benefit our movement – both in terms of refining our own ideologies as well as enhancing our organizing and outreach skills.
So, for example, when David Sirota charges that “Clintonism” was about only “pretending to serve ordinary people” while really “trying to appease Big Money,” should we actually believe – and then repeat – such a one-dimensional caricature? Would it have been so difficult to strongly criticize Hillary Clinton’s economic proposals without also arguing that she was being insincere whenever she spoke of the need to work against economic injustice and poverty?
When we use demeaning or nasty rhetoric to attack our political adversaries, we’re much more likely to turn off voters than win them over. In his fine book, Stand up Straight! How Progressives Can Win, Robert Creamer offers this piece of advice: “It’s good to be tough. It’s bad to be mean.”
Unless the American left can make a much cleaner break with this style of politics than we have up until now, we will never succeed in building the kind of public support that will be needed in order to enact a left-wing agenda in the years and decades to come.
Barack Obama has articulated the need to avoid demonizing adversaries and oversimplifying arguments better than anyone else in recent memory. The long-range prospects of the American left may well hinge upon whether we ignore or heed Obama’s advice.
Ken Brociner's essays and book reviews have appeared in Dissent, In These Times and Israel Horizons. He also has a biweekly column in the Somerville (Mass.) Journal.
SAVE 53% OFF
Reader Comments
This guy has his stuff together.Short on meaningless rehtoric and long
on reasoned observations.His arguements are dope
Posted by headed on Jul 13, 2008 at 8:07 AM
Yeah, I agree with this Brociner guy. We can’t even really understand the full scope of our convictions unless we understand and respect those of our idealogical opponents.
As much as I love good old-fashion delineations between good and evil, we must resist the tendency to villify the current administration. Because lets face it, they may be short-sighted, and religous-opportunists, but they are not driven by pure desire to cause pain and suffering in our country and around the world.
Posted by Crystalline on Jul 13, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Face it, the Bush Administration wasn’t the only presidential team to use imperialism as its’ foreign policy. Presidents both Republican and Democratic have invaded countries out of ideology that the U.S. knows better than the countries they invaded.
From Hawaii at the end of the 19th century to Iraq, places in the world have been subjected to the thoughts of American “exceptionalism” from presidents. This superiority complex became firmly established not long after WWII, but traces to the beginning of the 20th century and every president since brought that attitude to the Oval Office. Of course Bush Jr. was just another in this long line, why should any of us be surprised.
It’s now officially part of the requisite to be president, to consider themselves deserving to be “the most important person leading the most important nation in the world.” Without that attitude a person won’t even win the presidency. It’s that military superiority that all presidents know is their diplomatic hammer, and they use it. I suppose the term “warmonger” is nothing but trying to distinguish one user of military power from another, when all it really is, is degrees of difference. So why bother accusing the latest president (Bush Jr.) as being a warmonger when he’s just another in the long line.
And why bother calling McCain a warmonger when Obama if he wins will also take office with that virtually inherited attitude of being the “most powerful person leading the most powerful nation” with a military industrial complex at his disposal. To somehow believe he won’t use it in some fashion, either as a threat or as an actual tool, would be living in a fantasy world. Some term describing a president as a warmonger is limiting and inaccurate because the threat of military action is as much a part of warmongering as taking action. So put away the term warmongering, it really isn’t useful as presidents all have a touch of it in them, it’s part of the job these days.
Posted by Jon B on Jul 13, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Thank you, I’m printing this and hanging it up where I can see it every time I’m reading about MSM Obama smears and Bush’s and McCain’s outrageousness.
It’s been really hard to change my communication patterns - generally intimidating and judgmental. I’ve been so, so much more effective when I curb those tendencies and actually try to understand where opponents are coming from, ideologically or information-wise.
My best technique so far for chillin’ the rhetoric: I have both of Obama’s books on audio book on my iTunes. I listen to his quiet, reasoned and reasonable determination to make change take root by bringing people together, and I tune in to my own desire to stop the Right from driving so many wedges between people who have more in common than we have differences.
It works - I even curse less in private!
Posted by Inaru on Jul 14, 2008 at 4:12 AM
FInally! A sensible, reasonable article on a progressive website. There’s a whole new generation of progressives that has been hungry for exactly this kind of thinking. We’re fed up with the America-bashing, we’re fed up with the personal attacks, and we’re fed up with the dogma. We can see that it’s gotten progressives nowhere except marginalized. We want positive thinking and real results, not endless whining and defeatist attitudes.
Thank you, Ken Brociner, and thank you, In These Times. This truly is refreshing stuff.
Posted by marcello09 on Jul 14, 2008 at 7:18 AM
extended discussion >>>Continued...
Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 14 posts.