An interesting phenomenon seen when we have a perceived transfer of power in our country is “changing partners,” where Republicans and Democrats reverse positions on issues. When Republicans were the titular heads of the executive branch, for example, Democrats were concerned about deficits, and Republicans silent on the matter. In 2008 they switched partners, and deficits became a matter of serious concern. Democrats used to oppose acts to terrorism like torture and rendition, and are now a fervent and aggressive war party.
Most people just do this blindly, but intellectuals are not so lucky. They have to offer justification. That leads to another phenomenon I call “pretzelling,” where no matter the policy, no matter that it is identical (or more extreme) than that of the other party, they will wrap their brains around it. They find ways to obfuscate, justify, and as seen below, will ridicule those who easily see the contradiction.
Below is a quote from Polish Wolf (see comments below the post in this link), who for five years now has been dissecting US military aggression, finding that under Obama it is being intelligently managed.
Terror is apparently part of the inescapable duty of the modern executive, as long as that executive is an intelligent Democrat. Bush was clumsy, Obama a master. Military aggression, terrorism, torture, random murder were repellant under Bush but are now done with care, concern, reluctance and even some perceived accountability. Perhaps this is the modern version of the white man’s burden, an antiquated concept since our military is comprised now of mostly minorities, and our perceived executive a black man.
PW is responding to a comment by Lizard, and his point #1, which I omit, asks for a link to the well known fact among people o Lizard’s sort that the US is waging drone strikes in Yemen while publicly denying it. That’s another feature of partisanship in our country – the ability not to know critical information about one’s own party.*
2. The president has forever had the power to order military or intelligence action – this obvious including lethal force – against those deemed (by him and his advisers) to be dangerous to the state.
3. If anything, I prefer he do it with drones because at least a drone assassination is very hard to deny, and very hard to pin on ‘rogue elements’. When the president orders a drone strike, he takes personal responsibility for the outcome. That’s a big improvement over more traditional methods.
4. The reason liberals of your variety (I won’t even try to label them, because any label will be objectionable to you or to me) really oppose drones seems pretty simple: they lay bare the farce that is national sovereignty in the modern world. strike in Yemen any different than a Yemeni army action in Yemen with the same effect, or that makes providing weapons to a rebel group more frowned upon than providing weapons to a government. Since liberals o your sort cannot manage to come to terms with that, they must oppose the use of drones in warfare.
There was a wonderful line in Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” dealing with this phenomenon. Jesus was giving his Sermon on the Mount just out of ear shot, and someone thought he said “blessed are the cheese makers” instead of “peacemakers.” It made no sense except to the intellectual in the group, who began to ramble in about how Jesus was surely referring to craftsmen of all sorts, thereby making sense of nonsense.
That is the intellectual’s burden.
______________
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who had some high position the the Democratic Party during the recent campaign, was asked about Obama’s usurpation of the power to kill American citizens without warrant or review. She was not bluffing or obfuscating, as I read her. She honestly had no clue it was going on. That’s part of her job, an essential feature of partisanship – the ability to genuinely not know what is going on under your nose.
Piece of Mindful 
Fractionalize. Microtarget. Mushroom culture.
LikeLike
The so called Polish Wolf has what Cindy Sheehan calls “situational ethics.”
LikeLike
I think it goes much deeper than mere ethics. He cannot envision a certain class of leaders as being anything but well-intended, or his personal validation, being a Democrat, being smart and world-wise and all of that, goes out the window. So he reconstructs reality to remake those leaders and thereby self-fulfill his own expectations regarding his own personal excellence.
I’ve debated with him extensively, and that is my take. He’s not about to reshape his views, so he reshapes his world. It’s a bit hubristic in the sense that unlike others, I don’t think that he ever reflects back on himself, perhaps thinking he might be wrong about anything. His attitudes are deeply engrained and his whole existence is centered around a world view that is essentially nonsense. Hence he never comes here or even reads at this site. He’s extremely coocooned, much like Natelson on the other extreme.
My take, anyway. He’s quite a case study In Imperialistic hubris. There is tremendous personal validation for intellectuals, real and pretend, in that game.
LikeLike