..out of the dark

It's possible to write pretty good stuff when you're angry, tired, and under the slight influence of alcohol. Even when you're not certain you've gotten the point across, or made any sense, or avoided the worst insanities, when pushing the save- button..

Proof below the fold:

For the sake of appearances.

@Retired Military Patriot:

You know, I'm not so sure. I truly wish there was something to the idea that the facade is just a facade. And that once it falls, people will magically resort to reason, and see the truth. And then the leadership will be forced to tell the truth, and go on responding to actual facts and regulated process. You know, politics.

But that's not what's going to happen. We are in this mess because the leadership figured out it was easier to pretend to have process than actually having it. And their merits have been, at several points, jotted down in US law. Torture, Military commissions, domestic spying - they are critical issues, don't get me wrong - but they are from a certain point of view just test- cases, of the kind that you prove your worth by fighting. And they needed to be fought, because they are an obstacle to whatever they think their agenda is for the moment.

And this has been true for the current american leadership since long before the Iraq invasion, and they have been supported, strongly, by many, in Congress or elsewhere in flaunting any and all possible standards. Indeed, the argument I kept hearing was that the problem is so serious that extraordinary measures would not be simply acceptable in moderation, but expected.

So while that support is waning at this point - can you truly answer me if that is because the "gamble" didn't pay off, or whether it is because the public "understands" their leaders have absolutely no limitations?

Really, it does noone any good to imagine that there are not less than the current 30% who approve of Bush at this point, who truly oppose the idea that sheer power backed by American influence is so good and glorious that standards, like international law, are in practice an obstacle to doing good. Even among so called human rights activists, whose operations are generally blessed by any progressive administration. As they are their best supporters in fielding the current foreign policy narrative, republican or democratic, in return for money.

Because believing there's truly opposition to it all is only a way to pave the way for the next administration to do exactly the same thing, and easily win an election on the exact same lack of platform as the previous one. In fact, I'll give you a prediction right now. Step 1: the president is elected among glorious praise and much hopeful cheers. Step 2: the president gets in trouble domestically due to difficult political battles they cannot solve by rhetoric alone. Step 3: the president decides to focus on foreign policy issues, where their authority is more or less unquestionable, nay, unrivaled - in order to improve their image. Which should be one of strength, and resolve(!). Step 4: small wars that fit, after some tortured logical contortion, with the current White House narratives. And standards inhibiting the inevitable and always impending victory will be questioned, or done away with altogether.

I mean, Clinton didn't get as far as Bush, since Clinton did not simply declare himself to be above the law. But there is a pattern here, no?

And I regret to say - ..I truly regret to say - that I do not see any sign of reason suddenly taking hold in any of this. Instead I see mistrust of authority, but lack of will or even ability to question it. I see disappointment, but not the kind of soul- searching you would expect following a truly monumental disaster such as Iraq. And I see shame, but not because the idols and the leaders have fallen so low. No, I see shame because they failed. Because they did not succeed in what they attempted. And so the "trust" given to them has been betrayed.

And will confronting this kind of thing by forcing the cognitive dissonance to the front actually help? I'm afraid that, even as the political offices of the democratic frontrunners depend on it, that facts just does not come into the picture, yet, for an astounding amount of people.

Because that's how it works - the focus on the leaders and their character has become the scaffolding, not the facade everyone accepts must be there for the sake of appearances.