[Peace-discuss] Bush admin torture policy

[C. G. Estabrook]

You confuse the small political elite and the parties that represent them 
(Republican and Democrat) with the large majority of the population.  The US 
spends about a third of of its GDP each year to manufacture the consent of that 
larger group.  It works.  As a result, most Americans are substantially misled 
about what the US does around the world.  If they knew, they'd be appalled -- 
as, you rightly point out, the draftees sent to Vietnam were when they saw it. 
   They consequently revolted. The task for activists is to produce that same 
consciousness today. --CGE

Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> Carl wrote:"If most US citizens actually knew what was being done in 
> their names, they would be appalled."
> 
>  
> 
> First, an appalling number of people know exactly what the US is doing 
> in their names and they're fine w/ it. They start w/ the premise that 
> the US is entitled to its empire and has a responsibility to run the 
> world (some of these people repeatedly vote to fund the appalling 
> behavior done in all our names).
> 
>  
> 
> Second, the MSM and school curriculae give the basic facts of US 
> behavior since its inception. Manifest Destiny, acquisition of Indian 
> lands (and Hawaii) does not appall them.
> 
>  
> 
> Third, the MSM and school curriculae give basic facts of US behavior 
> since 9/11. Starting two wars of revenge for a terrorist attack by 20 
> men did not appall them. As the behind the scenes machinations of the 
> Bush administration have become sensational news, there has not been 
> much of an outcry from citizens (or lawmakers) showing they care all 
> that much about what has been done in their names. (The US electorate 
> did not end the war in Vietnam, even after the Melai massacre hit the 
> front pages; the unwillingness of those in uniform to continue fighting 
> ended the war..)
> 
>  
> 
> Fourth, 35 articles of impeachment by Dennis Kucinich (who also got the 
> word 'out there' during two runs for the Democratic nomination for 
> president... and got less than 5% of the vote) were not acted upon by 
> most who heard them...
> 
>  
> 
> Fifth, lotsa books exposing appalling US actions have hit the best 
> sellers' list (and I'm hoping the 35 Articles of Impeachment will soon 
> join them!) but most US citizens don't read those books... and don't pay 
> all that much attention when the highlights hit the MSM.
> 
>  
> 
> I'd call myself realistic rather than elitist... but regardless, I do 
> believe the Margaret Mead quote: "Never doubt that a small group of 
> thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the 
> only thing that ever has."
> 
>  
> 
>  --Jenifer
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> --- On *Wed, 6/18/08, C. G. Estabrook /<galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
> 
>     From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>     Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bush admin torture policy
>     To: "Sarah Tedrow-Azizi" <sftedrow at gmail.com>
>     Cc: jencart13 at yahoo.com, peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net, "LAURIE"
>     <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
>     Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 10:47 PM
> 
>     You're welcome; I entirely agree.  If most US citizens actually knew what
>     was 
>     being done in their names, they would be appalled.  That shows what groups like
> 
>     the well-named AWARE should be doing. --CGE
> 
> 
>     Sarah Tedrow-Azizi wrote:
>     > Thank you for putting this so eloquently.
>     > 
>     > It's a dangerous path to write off an entire population as
>     "idiots," or 
>     > even "willingly ignorant," and takes the tone of elitism. We
>     only have 
>     > access to the information we are given, and often that access is a 
>     > product of privilege. It makes little sense that anyone would make a 
>     > deliberate choice to be uninformed.
>     > 
>     > 
>     > C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>     >> Given that policy is largely insulated from politics in the US, why 
>     >> don't we pay attention to what US citizens actually think, rather
>     than 
>     >> what the media tell us they think -- and rather than dismissing them 
>     >> as "idiots" on the basis of that very policy?
>     >>
>     >> Both political parties and the media are far to the right of the 
>     >> general population on a whole host of issues and the population is 
>     >> purposely atomized and kept apart from political issues; they know 
>     >> they can't really affect them -- which is why they don't care
>     too much 
>     >> if Gore/Bush, Kerry/Bush. or Clinton/Obama/McCain become president..  
>     >> Specifically on foreign policy, the point has been made recently by 
>     >> Benjamin Page and Marshall Bouton in their book, "The Foreign
>     Policy 
>     >> Disconnect."
>     >>
>     >> "Drawing on a series of national surveys conducted between 1974
>     and 
>     >> 2004, Page and Bouton reveal that -— contrary to conventional wisdom
> 
>     >> -— Americans generally hold durable, coherent, and sensible opinions
> 
>     >> about foreign policy. Nonetheless, their opinions often stand in 
>     >> opposition to those of policymakers, usually because of different 
>     >> interests and values, rather than superior wisdom among the elite .... 
>     >> [For example] the public consistently and overwhelmingly favors 
>     >> cooperative multilateral policy and participation in international 
>     >> treaties. Moreover, Americans’ foreign policy opinions are seldom 
>     >> divided along the usual lines: majorities of virtually all social, 
>     >> ideological, and partisan groups seek a policy that pursues the goals 
>     >> of security and justice through cooperative means."
>     >>
>     >> "Sometimes government-media propaganda dupes the public -- on
>     Saddam 
>     >> and 9/11, to take a dramatic example. We know the means very well: 
>     >> huge government-media propaganda exercises, which do have detectable 
>     >> effects. But quite often the public is not duped and continues to 
>     >> oppose the policy decisions of the government, the media, and elite 
>     >> opinion, as public opinion studies reveal."
>     >>
>     >> "The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, which regularly
>     monitors 
>     >> American attitudes on international issues, illustrates the 
>     >> disconnect. A considerable majority of Americans favor 'working
>     within 
>     >> the United Nations, even when it adopts policies that the United 
>     >> States does not like.' Most Americans also believe that
>     'countries 
>     >> should have the right to go to war on their own only if they (have) 
>     >> strong evidence that they are in imminent danger of being
>     attacked,' 
>     >> thus rejecting the bipartisan consensus on 'pre-emptive war.'
>     >>
>     >> "On Iraq, polls by the Program on International Policy Attitudes
>     show 
>     >> that a majority of Americans favor letting the UN take the lead in 
>     >> issues of security, reconstruction and political transition in that 
>     >> country."
>     >>
>     >> We see what voters actually say on these matters in countries like 
>     >> Venezuela and Spain, which are more democratic than ours.  Even after 
>     >> the intense media campaign that was the "Reagan revolution"
>     (in no 
>     >> election did more than one fourth of the eligible voters vote for 
>     >> him), polls showed that about 80 percent of the public thought that 
>     >> the government works for the few and the special interests, not for 
>     >> the people. (The numbers have undoubtedly gone up in the Bush years.)
>     >>
>     >> So we can pay attention to what serious survey data reveals about the 
>     >> real political views of Americans, or we can trust what we
>     "know" 
>     >> about those "idiots" (so different from us) -- our knowledge
>     being a 
>     >> product of the US media...  --CGE