This is my last kick at the can -- meaning my last kick at The American Republican Party -- before the American election, so I will do my best to make this good.
Let me start by stating this: I have just as much Republican Idealism in me as I do Democratic Idealism so this is not about American Republican Idealistic values -- at least the way I see them.
Rather, this is about McCain and Palin, and what they have failed to achieve in this election.
Let me be totally clear as to how I view myself as a political philosopher. The label I attach to DGB Philosophy below may be long but most of sub-components of this label are pretty easy to define/describe, and indeed, overlap:
I view myself as a 'Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential, Ethical Capitalist-Socialist Integrative' Philosopher.
DGB Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential, Ethical Capitalist-Socialism
Now most Republicans are 'allergic' -- if not worse - to the term 'socialism', so it is imperative that people clearly understand what DGB Philosophy means by 'socialism' and to what extent DGB Philosophy values certain socialist ideas -- mainly the 'humanistic' side of socialism and the need for certain 'social safety nets' -- while rejecting other elements of socialism that do not fit with DGB Philosophy values.
That means:
1. Dialectic: Pertaining to Two-Way Causality, Influence, Accountability, Ethics, Assertiveness, and Compassion;
2. Democratic: Pertaining to Equal Rights, Equal Opportunity, and Equal Accountability which has nothing to do with 'Political Correctness' and 'walking on egg shells' when it comes to issues of 'Racism' and 'Sexism' -- because this type of 'leave the worms inside the can' attitude easily leads to the opposite type of discrimination: 'Reverse Racial Discrimination and Racial Pampering (i.e., Racial Immunity from Ethical-Legal Accountability and Prosecution)' as well as 'Reverse Sexual Discrimination and Sexual Pampering (again, Immunity from Ethical-Legal Accountability and Prosecution)';
3. 'Humanistic': pertaining to compassion, empathy, sensitivity, listening, negotiating, integratiing, caring, liking, loving, tolerating, respecting, accepting...valuing peace over war except when human degradation, disrespect, violence, and/or torture is involved...
4. 'Existential': Pertaining to ethical and existential accountability; a willingness to defend your values as being ethically and legally above-board, not narcissistically manipulative, fraudulent, hypocritical, unethical, and/or illegal...
as well as an accountability for the richness and/or poorness of your life overall, as well as your conscience....
5. 'Ethical': This means that you can go home at night, each night, and sleep at night because you did not defraud or exploit or unreasonably contribute to some person's misery and/or even death by what you said and/or did during the day -- justifications and rationalizations do not count here as they are cover-ups for the real 'pathology' and 'toxicity' of the inner dehumanized soul; For some people, even this is not strong enough - these people often warrent the label 'sociopath' or 'Wall Street investor and/or CEO'...Some are even 'Senators' or 'Governors' or 'White House Masters of War'...
6. 'Capitalism': There are more different types of Capitalism than I can distinguish -- and/or elucidate -- here. But let us distinguish between a number of different 'Either/Or' types of Capitalism -- realizing that there are innumerable different types of 'Integrative, Gray' Capitalism that contain both good and bad, weak and stong, elements. Such as: 1. 'Ethical' Capitalism vs. 'Unethical' Capitalism; 2. 'Humanistic-Existential' Capitalism vs. 'Dehumanized/Dehumanizing, Alienating/Alienated Captialism'; 3. 'Narcissistic' Capitalism vs. 'Win-Win' Capitalism; 4. 'Unilateral Decision-Making' Capitalism vs. 'Dialectic-Democratic Decision-Making Capitalism'; 5. 'Unilateral, Unequal Rights' Captialism vs. 'Equal Rights' Capitalism; 6. 'Imperial' Capitalism vs. 'Non-Imperial' Capitalism; 7. 'Monopoly' Capitalism vs. 'Non-Monopoly' Capitalism; 8. 'Global' Capitalism vs. 'Non-Global' Capitalism; 9. 'Free-Trade' Capitalism vs. 'Non-Free-Trade' Capitalism; 10. all sorts of different types of 'Socialist' Capitalism depending on definition; vs. 'Non-Socialist' Capitalism.
7. 'Socialism': The same distinctions relative to the different types of capitalism can also be applied to the the different types of socialism. Most of the relative characteristics of 'health' vs. 'pathology' when applied to either the economic categories of 'capitalism' or 'socialism' can be found in the 'adjective(s) that precede them. In the end, the relative differences between 'healthy capitalism' and 'healthy socialism' or alternatively, between 'pathological capitalism' and 'pathological socialism' are less important and less distinguishing than the adjectives preceding the categories of 'capitalism' or 'socialism' in and by themselves. For example, there are more similarities between 'German right-wing extremist Fascism' and 'Chinese or Russian extremist left-wing Communism' than there are differences. The similarities between Hitler on the one side and Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung on the other hand are much more significant than their differences. Now, I have never done any extended research investigation into the pros and cons of socialism, and I will certainly not start here, but I will say that if I were to start such an investigation, and particularly into what might be called 'socialist idealism', I would probably start with theoretically with the socialist idealism of Erich Fromm, and pragmatically, I would probably start by investigating life in Sweden...But that is probably a long way down the line in Hegel's Hotel, and indeed, may never happen. Time is everthing relative to starting with priorities, and right now the priority is the American election, the good of the American people, and the good of the world in general.
..............................................................................
My biggest disappointment with this election has been the lack of profound and compelling philosophical substance in the Repubican idealism, and rhetorical ideology. McCain has been extremely disappointing in my eyes as he has focused primarily on negative campaigning against Obama, and Palin has been philosophically shallow and uneducated in my opinion , dodging questions that she does not understand and/or want to deal with, while also focusing primarily on negative campaigning against Obama. Yes, she is attractive and vibrant, yes when she is on her game she can deliver a decent round of rhetoric, even if it is 'pre-scripted' by Republican strategists. Yes, she has to have something going for her in order to govern Alaska, and supposedly reduce spending. But there have been ethical issues that have been dogging her, and are still dogging her, and let's face it, she is simply in over her head in terms of potentially being the vice-president -- let alone the president -- of the United States of America. If she was the President of The United States of America, I would be looking for a new planet to live on -- before the 'nuke bombs' started to drop. I look at Governor Palin as being a 21st century rendition of Dr. Strangelove. And I find it rather scary indeed as to how many Republicans actually embrace her. That, in effect, is like embracing War.
.................................................................................
The most profound political philosophy that I have been exposed to lately has come from the movie: 'Why We Fight'. I want to buy this movie and study it intently. I found profound wisdom coming out of the mouths of three generations of Eisenhowers (of course, Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address, his son's knowledge and understandig of his dad's wisdom which I guess is not totally unexpected: John Eisenhower, Son of President Eisenhower, Military Historian
A military historian member of White House staff during his father's administration. He is a retired Brigadier General (AUS) and served as U.S. ambassador to Belgium, 1969 and 1971., and I am particularly impressed with Susan Eisenhower who I would vote for vice-president, hands down, over Sarah Palin any day of the week: Susan Eisenhower, Grand-daughter of President Eisenhower, Senior fellow at the Eisenhower Institute's director of programs. She is serving a third appointment to the Committee on International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) of the National Academy of Sciences.),
Chalmers Johnson (This man totally astouded me with his 'Straight Talk Express' -- I heard more wisdom and straight talk coming out of this man's mouth than I have in listening to two years of McCain's speeches and advertisements): Chalmers Johnson, Central Intelligence Agency 1967-1973, Political Scientist, With a fifty-year career in foreign policy, he is President of the Japan Policy Research Institute. An academic at the University of California, he has written many articles and books.
The real American hero of this election is neither McCain nor 'Joe the Plumber'.
It's...
Wilton Sekzer, Retired officer, New York City Police Department / Vietnam veteran
His son was killed on 9/11. After the attacks, he says the Bush Administration made him believe Saddam Hussein was responsible. He e-mailed every military branch, asking if his son's name might be written on a bomb to be dropped on Iraq. Later, he is uncertain if he should regret his actions, after hearing President Bush claim he does not know from where people got the idea that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks.
I give this man an A plus for the courage to fight through his own totally understandable desire for revenge against the people responsible for killing his son -- and his ability to come back to earth with clarity of reason and common sense by realizing that Bush and his fellow White House politicians 'bamboozled' the American people into believing that there was a solid justification for invading Iraq ('weapons of mass destruction') even though he admitted to the American people that there was no connection between invading Iraq and -- 9/11. 'Silly us, for being so stupid as to believe that the President of The United States was being honest with us'.
Karen Kwiatowski...see below...
.......................................................................
Karen U. Kwiatkowski (born 24 September 1960) is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency. Since retiring, she has become a noted critic of the U.S. government's involvement in Iraq. Kwiatkowski is primarily known for her insider essays which denounce a corrupting political influence on the course of military intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Colonel Kwiatkowski has an MA in Government from Harvard and an MS in Science Management from the University of Alaska. She has a PhD in World Politics from Catholic University; her thesis was on overt and covert war in Angola, A Case Study of the Implementation of the Reagan Doctrine. She has also published two books about U.S. policy towards Africa: African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (US Army Peacekeeping Institute, 2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (Air University Press, 2001).[1]
To me, Kwiatkowski also would also make a far superior vice president to Sarah Palin. And both lived in Alaska. Which I believe just goes to show that you can be -- say, a 'community worker with a law degree from Harvard' or a 'Lieutenant Colonel' with an MA degree in Government from Harvard -- and have a much more profound depth of intellect, common sense, wisdom -- and 'no-nonsense, cut to the chase, straight talk' philosphy. Palin may have some appeal fr her 'on-stage attractive looks, rhetoical passion, and 'below the belt verbal hits' -- on a good day. But she doesn't stand up well to scrutiny and testing the validity of what she says. The more you hear her talk, the more you understand that her depth of philosophy and wisdom doesn't go much deeper than 'no taxes', 'drill baby drill', War, baby war -- that is, if you are a real American Patriot, 'Obama pals with terrorists', and 'I wouldn't call Obama a socialist', but 'he likes to spread the wealth'. No shit, Sherlock. And so would millions of other middle class American house owners, foreclosed ex-house-owners, battle-scarred investors, and I could keep going on -- who have watched all these Wall Street CEO file for bankruptcy and then walk off or ride off into the sunset with their multi-million dollar settlements and hundred thousand dollar 'spa retreat celebrations'...)
...........................................................................
Why We Fight (2005), directed by Eugene Jarecki, is a documentary film about the United States's relationship with war as a business. The title refers to the World War II-era eponymous newsreels commissioned by the U.S. Government to justify their decision to enter the war against the Axis Powers.
Why We Fight was first screened at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival on 17 January 2005, exactly forty-four years after President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address. It won the Grand Jury Prize for Documentary, however, it received a limited public cinema release on 20 January 2005, and then was released, rated PG-13, on DVD on 27 June 2005, by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.
Contents
1 Synopsis
2 Contributors and representatives
2.1 Politicians
2.2 Civilians
2.3 Military participants
2.4 DVD commentators
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
Synopsis
Why We Fight describes the rise and maintenance of the United States military-industrial complex and its fifty-year involvement with the wars led by the United States to date, especially its 2003 Invasion of Iraq. The documentary asserts that in every decade since World War II, the American public was told a lie, so that the Government (incumbent Administration) could take them to war and fuel the military-industrial economy maintaining American political dominance in the world. Interviewed about this matter, are politician John McCain, political scientist and former-CIA analyst Chalmers Johnson, politician Richard Perle, reporter William Kristol, writer Gore Vidal, and public policy expert Joseph Cirincione.
Why We Fight documents the consequences of said foreign policy with the stories of a Vietnam War veteran whose son was killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks, and who then asked the military to write the name of his dead son on any bomb to be dropped in Iraq; and that of a twenty-three-year-old New Yorker who enlists in the United States Army because he is poor and in debt, his decision impelled by his mother's death; and a military explosives scientist who arrived to the U.S. as a refugee girl from Vietnam in 1975.
Contributors and representatives
Politicians
Senator John McCain
Elected to the United States Senate in 1986, he is a former U.S. Navy pilot and Vietnam prisoner of war.
Richard Perle, Chairman, Pentagon Defense Policy Board (2001–2003)
Worked the U.S. Government for three decades, and is an architect of the G. W. Bush Administration's foreign policy. As a writer, he regularly is published in conservative news publications.
William Kristol, Editor, The Weekly Standard
An influential man in U.S. politics since the 1970s, he founded the Weekly Standard magazine in 1995, and co-founded the Project for the New American Century think tank in 1997.
Charles Lewis, Centre for Public Integrity
Founder, and ex-executive director, Centre for Public Integrity — non-profit, non-partisan "watch-dog" organisation established in 1989 — investigating and reporting their research about U.S. public policies
Civilians
Joseph Cirincione, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
A senior associate and Director of the Non-Proliferation Project, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.
Gwynne Dyer, Military Historian
He is a military historian, writer, and journalist who has worked for the Canadian, British, and American militaries. He published books, articles, information papers, and a radio series, about international affairs.
Susan Eisenhower, Grand-daughter of President Eisenhower
Senior fellow at the Eisenhower Institute's director of programs. She is serving a third appointment to the Committee on International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) of the National Academy of Sciences.
John Eisenhower, Son of President Eisenhower, Military Historian
A military historian member of White House staff during his father's administration. He is a retired Brigadier General (AUS) and served as U.S. ambassador to Belgium, 1969 and 1971.
Chalmers Johnson, Central Intelligence Agency 1967-1973, Political Scientist
With a fifty-year career in foreign policy, he is President of the Japan Policy Research Institute. An academic at the University of California, he has written many articles and books.
Wilton Sekzer, Retired officer, New York City Police Department / Vietnam veteran
His son was killed on 9/11. After the attacks, he says the Bush Administration made him believe Saddam Hussein was responsible. He e-mailed every military branch, asking if his son's name might be written on a bomb to be dropped on Iraq. Later, he is uncertain if he should regret his actions, after hearing President Bush claim he does not know from where people got the idea that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks[citation needed].
William Solomon
Twenty-three-year-old soldier. Deployed to Iraq on 10 January 2005, for 18 months, as a helicopter mechanic.
Frank "Chuck" Spinney, Retired Military Analyst
Lehigh University-schooled mechanical engineer (class of 1967), worked in the U.S.A.F., in Ohio, before working in the Pentagon's Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation in 1977. He became a harsh critic of the Pentagon, later known as the "Conscience of the Pentagon", when he attacked the spiraling spending increase in the report "Defense facts of life", published in 1982, later known as the "Spinney Report", which earned a cover on "Time" magazine.
Gore Vidal, Author of Imperial America
Writer, playwright, screen writer, novelist, and essayist, he has written books on American foreign policy explaining the American empire.
[edit] Military participants
'Fuji' and 'Tooms'
U.S.A.F. stealth aeroplane fighter pilots 'Fuji' and 'Tooms' dropped the first bombs on Baghdad city, starting the Iraq War in 2003.
Colonel Richard Treadway, Commander USAF Stealth Fighter Squadron
Vice-Commander of the 49th Fighter Wing of the U.S. Air Force
Colonel Walter W. Saeger, Jr., Director, U.S. Air Force Munitions Directorate
Director of the Air-to-Surface Munitions Directorate, Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base in Utah.
Karen Kwiatkowski
A retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel of the Pentagon working with the National Security Agency.
James G. Roche, Secretary of the Air Force
Twentieth Secretary of the U.S. Air Force
Anh Duong
Inventor of the thermobaric bunker buster bomb.
[edit] DVD commentators
Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell
From 1984 to 1987, Col. Wilkerson was Executive Assistant to Admiral Stewart A. Ring, U.S.N., Director for Strategy and Policy (J5) USCINCPAC. In the 1990s Col. Wilkerson was Director of the U.S.M.C. War College, Quantico, Virginia. He has written much about military and national security affairs in mainstream and professional journals. [1]
See also
Military-industrial complex
Military Keynesianism
References
^ "Interview transcript of the PBS program NOW with Col. Lawrence Wilkerson about pre-war intelligence". Public Affairs Television (February 3, 2006). Retrieved on 2007-08-08.
External links
Why We Fight official site at Sony Pictures Classics.
Interview with director Eugene Jarecki at Now Playing magazine.
Strangely, the most intelligent things that I have heard come out of McCain's mouth are in the interviews he did in this movie. But that was then (2005); and this is now (2008). The man in that movie, from what I have been able to see and interpret , is philosophically not the same man as I have heard and seen in this campaign election. Maybe that is partly because all philosophical and political idealism (read: McCain's 'Straight Talk Express') goes out the window when you start falling further and further behind in an election. Or maybe it is simply because -- McCain has changed, and not in a good way. His 'humanism' and 'humanistic idealism' has more and more diminished as more and more of his 'political expedience' has pressed its way into his negative rhetorical campaigning. The irony of this situation is that it backfired on him as Madonna's visual imagery has become more and more relevantly true. Not totally -- to be sure -- but in good part. From both McCain and Palin, I certainly saw McCartyism rear its ugly head again.
I saw McCain stop this nonsense only once when he confronted the woman who called Obama an 'Arab'; but the negative ads, the negative steretyping, the negative associating (such as the continued use of Obama's middle name, 'palling around with terrorists' and the use of the term 'Socialism' where Obama is simply demanding that the 'pieces of the American Pie' be spread more fairly to all American Capitalists, not just to the unethical, greedy CEOs and investors who defrauded the rest of the American people out of millions if not billions of dollars while they took this money out of the back door of their respective bankruptcies. And then celebrated when the American Government bailed them out.
The complete irony here is that this bailout -- presumbably supported by all of McCain, Palin, Obama, and Biden -- was a combined act of Republican-Democratic Socialism that provided a 'safety net' to the very people who needed and deserved this safety net the least -- the completely narcissistic Wall Street CEOs in collusion with the Senate and the White House who have supported the Wall Street Pirates both before and after this huge act of financial fraud went down.
This is what Obama means by 'sharing the American Capitalist Pie more evenly' as opposed to the top 5 per cent of the most powerful corporate people in America taking all of the American Pie for themselves and leaving thousands, indeed millions, of middle class Americans lurching in the wake of this 'inside job, CEO mortgage and bank robbery'.
Again, I emphasize this point: if Conrad Black deserves to be in jail, and the fraudsters involved in the Enron scandal deserve to be in jail, there are certainly a good ten to 20 more corporate fraudsters who deserve to be in jail relative to this scandal as well. The most guilty of these fraudsters need to be legally and financially punished -- put in jail, and/or legally divested of their fraudulantly stolen millions.
Who is more likely to oversee that this type of finanacial fiasco never happens again, particularly the collusion between Wall Street, the White House, and The Senate?: McCain or Obama? I say, Obama.
Who is the superior intellect in this election? McCain or Obama? I say Obama.
Who has shown the cooler temperment and self-control in this election? McCain or Obama? I say Obama.
Who has campaigned more for human integrationism rather than divisionism? McCain or Obama? I say Obama.
Which political party has led the Amercan people further down the path of extremism? The Republican Party or the Democratic Party? I would say the Republican Party.
Which Presidential Candidate has the greater chance of ending the war in Iraq? McCain or Obama? I say Obama.
Which potential Presidential Candidate has the greater chance of diminishing the expansion of Middle East and Global War? McCain or Obama? I say Obama?
Which Presidential Candidate actually seems more intent on finding Bin Laden? McCain or Obama?
Who is more focused on where the focus should be -- in Afghanastan and Pakistan; not Iraq? McCain or Obama? I say Obama.
Just three quick sentences of advice for Senator Obama: "Don't follow the Republican path of 'unilateralism' and 'pre-emptive, unilateralist invasions'. That's how America continues to lose allies and make new enemies. It doesn't take a rocket scientist -- nor the President of the United States -- to fully realize and understand that this is very bad American foreign policy."
That is enough for tonight.
-- dgb, October 22nd-23d, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment