Moving the Public to Accept the Unacceptable

There is a fascinating account by Milton Mayer in 1955, reflecting on what had happened in Germany from 1933 to 1945, here:

http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/man-vs-morlock

From that article:

This kind of thing need not be deliberate, orchestrated by the elite ruling class, it can be a simple exercise in politics--how far can we push, how much can we get the people to accept now? rather than some huge master plan. Yet the destination at the end is the same: desensitization of the people to a tremendous loss of status and dignity and freedom.

What is involved in the airport strip seach and grope is far more important than just a travel impediment. If the people accept this, that is a new threshold of normalcy, and then the next step down will be taken.

 

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I've been saying this for almost two years.

 

Thank you for posting this.

I don't want to argue with another Democrat about who started this Patriot Act (expletive deleted). DEAL WITH IT NOW. Both parties, "I can't vote for Ron Paul because...blah blah blah" fill-in the blank.

That is more important to you than the Constitution and the rule of law? Well, IS IT????

 

Both parties are at fault. Both parties are corrupt. Both parties are gutless and increasingly fascist-leaning.

Write in another name, anybody's name. Just stop voting for these sell-outs.

 

Totally agree.

That's where I disagree, strongly, b/c the best and only chance at present to repeal Patriot Act is through overwhelming support for Ron Paul, as a Republican.

A non-vote or a thrown-away vote is as every bit as bad as a vote for the pro-Patriot Act everyone-else-running. My challenge is 'don't feel smug' about a write-in, b/c there are crimes of omission, non just commission.

 

Well, though Ron Paul has been excellent on the TSA, on these never-ending wars, on the National Security State in general, I'm afraid I find him unacceptable on women's rights and scary in his nativist leanings -- which, ironically, are always an element of fascism. (And his son is downright loony -- though, I know, I know, he's not responsible for his son.) So I'm not writing in his name.

As for a write-in vote being a throw-away vote, not if enough people do it. The parties will damn well pay attention if they lose enough people. But this is like all difficult journeys, including fighting the TSA -- it starts with a single step. And you have to be willing to take some tactical losses along the way to get to the strategic goal.

 

I wonder what young people, who are just starting to become politically aware, think about this. The don't really have an idea what it was like pre 9/11. Instead, they're growing up experiencing things like this.

 

They're being groomed to accept ever more invasive, ever more intrusive procedures.

 

Anecdotally, they did grow up with the Internet, so they are very attuned to perceived infringements on liberty by extension. My 15-yr old son's awakening was with Mubarak cutting off the Internet, and he has become a Ron Paul fan all on his own.
They also see the War on Drugs as ridiculous, compared to how alcohol is handled.
Unfortunately as far as the Bill of Rights goes, seeing how abysmal schools are, it's up to the parents, in addition to their commenting during scenes as you picture.

 

On the other hand, they're also used to lack of privacy as the default position. Look at Facebook. Look at Twitter. We have an entire population who think that every burp and fart should be for public consumption. The notion of privacy is quaint to them.

I'm not on FB, but my friends who are just sigh and tell me they've grown weary of explaining why the 4th Amendment is important, why snooping -- by government or business -- is a potential danger, why they shouldn't reveal Every Thing About Their Lives on the internet, why privacy settings exist, etc.

 

we

bolding mine

perhaps we should start referring to scope and grope as TSA's War on the Bill of Rights?

 

And that's where I see the more effective strategy as building support for anti-TSA, anti-Patriot Act planks which cannot be ignored, through the candidate Paul. If there is overwhelming support for him, those positions cannot be ignored. Otherwise, you can guarantee they will be.
The Republicans won't split their vote with a third party either b/c Obama is reviled.

They could care less, Lisa! More spoils to the victors! It's by getting people to vote that we have any leverage at all.
The set-up is so biased to two parties, that only when there is enough support for one of those two to be replaced could it "flip". And the present debate commission is owned by D/R parties, so a third party would not be included in the debates running up to the 2012 election.

As far as women's rights, Paul is for State's rights, not Federal dictums. I don't take this lightly, but what is most important? The Constitution or ________ issue?

And however anyone ultimately votes, for the issues of TSA and Patriot Act to be at play, I believe Dems should re-register GOP and vote for RP in the primary.

I know I am harsh in my opinions, but I feel the liberal voters are the ones who will be most culpable on speeding everyone down this highway to fascism if they don't do something other than sit on the sidelines and watch. I think voting for RP is a form of active resistance, of which there need to be many.

 

I agree that so-called liberals are a huge part of the problem. God knows I fought long and hard at that group blog where I used to write, and I'm still fighting with friends and colleagues, trying to wake them up. But it ain't happening.

 

It's more appropriately the War on Some Drugs. And yes, the War on the Bill of Rights is good. Or maybe just the War on Us.

 

It's definitely the War on Us. The defense-industrial-government complex wasn't earning enough dirty money making guns and bombs to kill people in other countries - now they're turning the weapons around and pointing them at us. We're paying for our own destruction.

 

>As far as women's rights, Paul is for State's rights, not Federal dictums. I don't take this lightly, but what is most important? The Constitution or ________ issue?

For me, women's rights are a constitutional issue. Roe v. Wade needs to be preserved and defended. If Roe goes, Griswold (legalizing contraception) will follow soon after - both cases rest on the same notions that privacy is implicitly protected in the Bill of Rights. There are privacy interests in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, and because of that, I don't see protecting our rights to abortion and contraception as extra-constitutional, if you know what I mean. I could write a tome on this issue -- don't worry, I won't.

And the religious aspects are galling too. Ron Paul is pro-life because he's pro-life. That's fine, I respect that, but I don't appreciate having to adhere to someone else's religion. I'm not christian and I don't believe life starts at conception.

As for teens and privacy, here's a great article (it's long) by danah boyd (<--and yes, the capitalization is correct). She's done a lot of work on the issue of teens, privacy, and social media. Things aren't as bad as you think.

And for the Patriot Act. I wish I could be optimistic about it getting repealed, but I don't think it's going to happen. Maybe some of the sections that are slated to 'sunset' will actually sunset some day, but I'm not even optimistic about that. The reason is because many of the sections of the Patriot Act were written long before the bill became law. These sections were 'sitting on the shelf' waiting to be put into a bill - and that's one of the reasons why the Patriot Act was able to be drafted so quickly - chunks of it were already written.

The FBI and other law enforcement have wanted some of those powers for a long, long time, and now they finally have them. They aren't going to give them up without a fight.

 

If Paul runs, I'm voting for him.

If he doesn't, I'm writing in Lisa Simeone's cat. Even though I've never met Lisa, much less her cat. I don't know the cat's name; I'm just going to write "Lisa Simeone's cat" on the ballot. I don't even LIKE cats! (Sorry, Lisa; I'm allergic and the little monsters KNOW it and they crawl all over me. ) But despite all that, I'll take an unknown cat over the other candidates, any day.

 

RadioGirl,

His name is Bennie. We have four cats, but of all of them, Bennie is the only appropriate choice for President. He's young, charming (actually goofy as all get-out), honest, intelligent, healthy, kind-hearted, talkative, tolerant but mischievous, able to roll with the punches. Bennie for President!

 

And he's cute, well, for a cat anyway. I trust he's never been accused of embezzling funds, cheating on his wife or insider trading?

 

I dunno. Bennie has that Bachmann crazy-eye thing going on. I think I'll stick with Ron Paul...