[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

> It seems to me that many people good people, who opposed the war, wanted to 
> convince themselves that Obama was an anti-war candidate, when he clearly 
> wasn't.  The wish is father to the thought, but truth is better than illusion.

Even granting that it was the people who convinced themselves of this and not Obama who convinced them of this, how can you assume a self-righteous position of saying that for them truth is better than illusion?  I can understand how you might say that it is better for you personally but to suggest that this is the case for others is sheer projection based on your assuming that you have clearer and more accurate knowledge and understanding than those who do not agree with you, which comes down to egotism clear and simple.

I cannot respond to your claim that Mort has attributed opinions that you have denied; but I am not so sure that your response here furnishes a adequate reply to Mort's finding the apparent (to him) "lack of balance" objectionable.  While my response ( and I assume Neil's response) was primarily to Jenifer's comments on the disproportionateness of critical comments focused on Obama more than McCain more than to Mort's objections.  I think that there may be an essential difference in the arguments of the two concerning imbalance.



-----Original Message-----
From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:35 PM
To: Morton K. Brussel
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; LAURIE SOLOMON
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

You seem to find it necessary to attribute to me opinions that I've denied.  Why 
is that so important to you?

It seems to me that many people good people, who opposed the war, wanted to 
convince themselves that Obama was an anti-war candidate, when he clearly 
wasn't.  The wish is father to the thought, but truth is better than illusion.


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> My responses below:
> 
> On Nov 9, 2008, at 2:53 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> "...this lack of 'balance' is what I found objectionable..."
>>
>> Mort--
>>
>> The balance you call for would apparently mean equal time devoted to 
>> exposing
>> what McCain's actual position on the war was, and what policies he 
>> would follow
>> in office.
>>
>> Was there any doubt about that? But there was a great deal of doubt 
>> about those
>> questions in regard to Obama.
>>
>> Was anyone in AWARE or reading this list (with the exception of the 
>> FBI agent)
>> thinking of voting for McCain?  But many were supporting Obama.
> 
> You willfully miss the point I tried to make: There were only two 
> realistic possibilities as to who would win the election, McCain or 
> Obama. By not considering the over-all positions of the two, and their 
> histories, you encouraged the notion that to vote for Obama (say in 
> Ohio, an up-for grabs state) would be the bad choice, (this despite 
> occasional strained remarks that perhaps it might be OK to vote for 
> Obama (in Ohio)). Few in AWARE, I believe, were fooled by or ecstatic 
> about Obama—his campaign positions—except in contrast with McCain and 
> the Bush reign. They simply considered Obama a better choice over all.  
> That is "support" in a highly restricted sense.
>>
>> Shouldn't an anti-war group attempt to discover what the war policy of 
>> the
>> presumptive president is, and what he's likely to do in office, in 
>> order to
>> figure out what an anti-war strategy might be?  Asking Mr. Obama to be 
>> nice
>> strikes me as puerile, to borrow a phrase: it didn't work with 
>> Kennedy, Johnson,
>> Carter, or Clinton (or any Republicans, it goes without saying).
> 
> Perhaps you should ask AWARE members how enlightened they became as a 
> result of your tiresomely redundant condemnations of the villainy of 
> Obama. Speaking for myself, I did not need that information, being quite 
> conscious of Obama's defects. What I saw were politically blind attacks 
> on Obama which ignored the naturally expected conclusion of someone told 
> only of Obama's villainy, i.e., vote for his opponent! Or don't vote, or 
> vote for another candidate. Your attacks led to nothing constructive, 
> and hardly instructive in their repetitiousness.
>>
>> Chomsky says that he differs with his Quaker friends who recommend 
>> telling truth
>> to power.  Power already knows the truth, he says, and tries to cover 
>> it up.  We
>> should be telling truth to our fellow citizens -- but that depends on our
>> breaking through power's obfuscation, and finding out what the truth 
>> is.  What
>> the truth is -- that's what the arguments on this list are about.  We 
>> know (and
>> agreed on) the truth about McCain, but not about Obama -- the 
>> front-runner -- so
>> there was little sense in devoting equal time to both.  --CGE
> 
> I don't believe that those attending AWARE meetings were unaware of 
> "power's obfuscations". Most allied themselves to AWARE to oppose the 
> power structure.
> 
> --mkb
>