Email This to a Friend
Let’s Debate, Not Dehumanize
Try saying one good thing about someone you don't like — whether it's George Bush or Nancy Pelosi.
Conversely, when asked to name “one good thing” about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, some on the right were equally stymied. “I used to think she dressed well,” a woman told me, “until she put the scarf on her head in the Middle East.”
When we are incapable of finding “one good thing” to say about Bush or Pelosi or even someone in our personal lives, we’ve surrendered reason to repellent hate; the hate owns us. At that point, we are no better than the person we abhor; we may be worse.
To acknowledge even “one good thing” about the object of our loathing serves to humanize that person a little. But once we begin to humanize what we have demonized, we are susceptible to doing it again and again, even to the point of finding some common ground with that hated, hateful “other.”
When the Iraqi people voted in their first elections in 2005, The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart worried to Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria, “What if Bush was right? Here’s the great fear that I have: what if Bush, the president, ours, has been right about this all along? I feel like my worldview will not sustain itself and I may … implode.”
Stewart was joking, of course. But his joke exposed a germ of hard truth: our hatreds, particularly if they are socially acceptable in our sphere, sustain us — they make us feel strong and impenetrable. And if your hate supports some or all of your worldview, you cannot afford to admit to “one good thing,” because you cannot allow yourself to be vulnerable. The slightest breach might tumble the fortress of your whole society.
We are safe, then, as long as we do not give in to the idea that there may be “one good thing” about the object of our revilement.
Or are we?
Jim D. Adkisson — his humanity subsumed by his hate — unloaded his shotgun on people who had become mere labels to him. They had become “others.” They had become “theys.”
Jesus of Nazareth — whom even atheists will concede was a “great teacher” — concluded his Sermon on the Mount thusly: (paraphrased) “Love your enemies, pray for those who annoy you, for the sun rises on the bad and the good, and rain falls upon everyone, so learn to live together. If you love only those who love you, what’s that, something hard? Who can’t do that?”
Praying for the one we hate certainly does have a way of bringing our own faults to the surface of our consciousness, and therefore tempering our repugnance toward the “other.” Jesus gave good advice.
But if we are disinclined to pray, perhaps being open to simply admitting “one good thing” about those we hate can help us maintain a hold of our shared humanity, before we lose our collective grips.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Elizabeth Scalia is a contributing writer to First Things Magazine and the blogger known as The Anchoress.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
69 Comments
1. Boris:Let me be the first to say that this was a great article.
George Bush has done good work for Africa.
That wasn’t so hard.
BTW, the internet makes things worse. People become hardened in their opinions and less likely to listen to reasoned arguments. Also, they say things they would never said face to face.
Aug 4, 2008 - 4:27 am 2. Xanthippe:Hear hear. I’m dismayed by the lack of civility in public discourse.
Maybe it’s because I was young and less aware, but it seems to me that people are far more polarized and far less civil toward each other today than 40 years ago – or even 20 years ago.
Then again, beware the rose colored glasses of nostalgia.
Aug 4, 2008 - 7:00 am 3. Saltherring:Nancy Pelosi does a fine job representing all the fruits and nuts in her San Francisco congressional district.
Aug 4, 2008 - 7:41 am 4. pappy:i don’t mind any one expressing their views, it scares me that they are in a position of power to have their world saving agendas’ come to fruition. as to saying something nice about some a#%hole just to be p.c. would be a lie. always remember, “to thine own self be true.”
Aug 4, 2008 - 8:08 am 5. pch1013:pappy: So I guess we won’t be hearing any heartfelt praise of Obama from you, then.
Aug 4, 2008 - 8:33 am 6. deacondean:While my political views have little, or perhaps nothing, in common with those of Ms. Pelosi, I admire someone who has been able to raise a family that appears to be functional (as opposed to “dysfunctional”) and then find the time and the initiative to achieve a successful political career.
This is one of the best articles I’ve read in some time.
I hope you’re enjoying your “down time”.
Aug 4, 2008 - 8:41 am 7. John the Libertarian:Excellent point of view and a most welcome article.
Here’s my effort: Nancy Pelosi makes every effort to remain loyal to her political base. She also ruled House Democrats with amazing control before the 2006 elections, when they were in the minority.
Aug 4, 2008 - 8:43 am 8. Chip:I reserve the right to “dehumanize” people who would jail (even execute) me for my opinions or plunder my money for their road-to-hell utopian socialist schemes. That’s what dinosaurs like me call free speech. Personally, given how ineffective ad hominem can be, I try to avoid it.
I wouldn’t be interested in politics if most people could be relied on to leave me alone. Manners are important, but should not be legislated. Once you start determining what terminology is appropriate you’re half way to a Newspeak Dictionary. Limited government never looked better in the upcoming Soros-OIC-UN-Obamaworld where “Islamophobia” (blasphemy) will be punishable by death.
Conservatives, libertarians, or any non-statists, enjoy venting while it’s still legal.
Lessons of History Redux
Lessons of History Redux II
Aug 4, 2008 - 8:43 am 9. Sarah Rolph:Nicely done, Anchoress.
Pappy, you are missing the point. The point is to find one good thing, about someone you disagree with, that is *true* — and admit that truth — in order to keep from falling into the trap of dehumaninzing those with whom with disagree. I agree with you that it is upsetting when a dumbass is in a position of power, but that’s a separate point.
Boris, I thing you’re wrong about the Internet making things worse, although of course we could all find examples of the specifics you site (such as people saying things you can’t imagine they would say face-to-face). But people frequently became hardened in their opinions before the advent of the Internet! You can use the Internet to harden your opinions more quickly, but you can also use it to expand your horizons. I see a lot of evidence that many people are doing that. I myself have changed my mind about some things based on my Internet reading, and I frequently find that I didn’t know as much as I thought I did, or was wrong about something, etc. To cite just one example, I was raised without religion and had some biases I didn’t even realize; now I regularly read The Anchoress and a few other religious thinkers and am very grateful for these resources.
I think the Internet provides a wonderful opportunity for us to learn or re-learn how to carry on a civil, respectful dialog. I see signs of this everywhere–this essay of Elizabeth’s, for example, has very wise things to say about the essence of civil dialog (respect for others, even those we dislike). I see some great dialogs conducted on various blogs. Sure, there’s lots of yelling, but there is also a whole lot of very respectful, considered discussion. The latter can win out if we practice it. One of my favorite blogs is Shrinkwrapped, where the comments section can get pretty wild and crazy. Shrink almost never deletes a comment, and he rarely jumps into the dicussion. Usually we sort it out among ourselves. There was one fascinating incident when someone left a really inappropriate comment and when enough of us made it clear that we thought so, mostly through showing our support of the post (which happened to be a guest post), the offender actually came back and apologized! I considered that a great day for the Internet.
Aug 4, 2008 - 8:59 am 10. SGT Ted:It’s nice that Nancy isn’t President. Does that count?
I am more than willing to debate, but when all my positions are ascribed to racist/homophobic/imperialist/sexist/wants to poison the air and kill The Children and the Earth, there’s not much room for reasoning. Oh yes I forgot Greedy for not being a socialist.
Aug 4, 2008 - 9:01 am 11. Javelin:Saltherring:
Aug 4, 2008 - 9:30 am 12. pappy:Way to go, dehumanize them all. Maybe you should look at the real enemy closer, the one you see in the mirror.
SGT Ted, self righteousness and paranoia causes even more dehumaization. Don’t forget, Hitler was saving Europe from the plague of Bolshevism and Jewry so he had to kill them before they killed all the good little Aryans adn Nordics. FInding some radical on the other side and ascribing his feelings on millions is a good way to make oneself look like an ignorant, paranoid jerk.
sarah: i disagree with you, but not with your right to say it, and i would never dehumanize you.
Aug 4, 2008 - 9:31 am 13. HeatherRadish:Ms. Pelosi looks very nice for a woman of her age, although I suppose that’s more a compliment to her surgeons.
I appreciate the point behind the exercise, but there’s nothing in her words or actions worthy of praise; wishing it were so won’t make it so.
Aug 4, 2008 - 9:33 am 14. always right:Most of the stuff said against Pelosi (that I am aware of) does not ‘dehumanize’ her. Most just totally disagree with her agenda.
Yes, I would be hard pressed to say even one good thing about her, but that doesn’t mean I ‘hate’ her therefore I demonize her.
A big difference.
Aug 4, 2008 - 9:42 am 15. pch1013:“Most of the stuff said against Pelosi (that I am aware of) does not ‘dehumanize’ her.”
I can only assume, then, that you have not perused the conservative sites thoroughly enough, because if you had, you would have found countless references to her as “Pelousy,” “Nazi Pelosi,” etc.
I suppose I’d better ante up by saying that I admire George W. Bush for having such a good relationship with his wife, for his commitment to physical fitness, and for his willingness to adhere stubbornly to highly unpopular policy positions. I also believe he will be an excellent MLB Commissioner when the time comes.
“Finding some radical on the other side and ascribing his feelings on millions is a good way to make oneself look like an ignorant, paranoid jerk.”
Yes, very cute. Sidestep charges of “dehumanizing” Mrs. Pelosi by “dehumanizing” an entire Congressional district instead.
Aug 4, 2008 - 10:09 am 16. Scott Hebert:Thank you, Ms. Scalia, for saying something that I wish could be said to so many in my family. (BTW: No one in our family–except for one person–disagrees on politics.)
As far as the exercise goes… we Americans tend to blur a person and their activities, and that does not necessarily cause problems, but can.
That is, the fact that the current Congress we have has one of the lowest approval ratings in American history is a matter of popular record. We, as people, can certainly ask the Honorable Speaker of the House for an account of why that might be. That does not impinge on her personhood, as it were.
As to her, in herself, I hardly know anything about her. I can echo the above comment that she does seem to faithfully represent her district. It’s possible that she does really believe everything that she stands for; I cannot tell one way or the other. I am rather cynical when it comes to politics, and therefore I would hope to reserve judgement.
Having said all of that, her political opinions and mine are radically different. I believe her policies are ruinous for the financial status of the United States, and at best take for granted the fact that we are secure against external threats. However, she shares the basic human nature of us all, and foremost of human characteristics is fallibility.
It seems to me that before the dehumanization of others begins, you must psychologically put yourself above humanity. Thus, you no longer admit to your fallible human nature. This frees you to comment on the nature of those who are still fallible. One must admit that, logically, an infallible being should take precedence over a fallible being.
It would seem that the extent to which you remember your own fallibility is the extent to which you will excuse the fallibility of others. Unfortunately, too many people in America, when it comes to politics, forget this basic fact. Thank you, again, Ms. Scalia, for reminding us all of this fact.
Aug 4, 2008 - 10:10 am 17. james wilson:–As the greatest liar tells more truth than falsehoods, so may it be said of the worst man, that he does more good than evil–Burke
Aug 4, 2008 - 10:18 am 18. Bill:But OK, I’ll try this.
He brought self-respect to millions of people who had been robbed of it. He originated the audacity of hope, provided change they could believe in, and made Germany a far better place to live in for most of its people.
The vast majority of folk who loved and adored him were good people, with minor issues.
All better now?
OK, here’s mine. She’s a good cat herder (albiet with a herd that has lower confidence rating than the current president).
You’d be better off asking someone to say something nice about Bill Clinton. Alternatively a very very public representative or senator may get a more fair comparison. Pelosi just wasn’t a “singular” person before her ascension and thus can’t be seen as one now by many, including myself.
I think it’s very unfair to ask the same of Nancy’s critics that is asked of W’s. Not that demonizing her as “Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca)” is acceptable.
George (or Bill) is (was) out up front. It was easy to see what they did and do since as president is a singular office with no one to legitimately hide behind. The buck unquestionably stops at their desk. House Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader, on the other hand (especially one sitting in opposition to the oval office who is explicitly elected – house speaker/senate majority leader is an accident of a convergence of votes for the house and senate), is not as “distinct.” Thus, the poor slob becomes the dysfunctional alloy of all the “them” on the other side unless you are able to stand well upfront as a genuine leader and not many speakers or majority leaders have been able to do that.
Aug 4, 2008 - 10:23 am 19. always right:pch1013:
I can only assume, then, that you have not perused the conservative sites thoroughly enough, because if you had, you would have found countless references to her as “Pelousy,” “Nazi Pelosi,” etc.
Yes, you have that part right. Guess I haven’t ‘perused the conservative sites thoroughly enough’.
/pat forehead, that’s why I don’t get those talking points!
Aug 4, 2008 - 10:35 am 20. Wearyman:While I frequently disagree with him on many points, I am going to side, at least in part, with Boris on this one. The Internet, for all the good it does, has allowed a certain loss of decorum. Although I will admit some of that is generally socially related (IE: The general degeneration of our society since the “Great Society” days and then accelerated with the hippies.)
Essentailly, what passes for “political discourse” on many blogs and web forums is merely proof of John Gabriel’s Theory(crude language warning).
Of Nazi Pelosi… I mean, Nancy Lugosi… I mean, erm, the Speaker of the House…
I hear she is a doting and loving grandmother.
Urgh! I think I pulled something… I need an icepack! Medic!
(P.S. I hope that HTML code worked, There is no Preview button on PJM!)
Aug 4, 2008 - 10:52 am 21. fred:Outside of the blogosphere I have witnessed the conversational/debate/didactic style of Leftists and Bush haters. You don’t have to travel through these environs of weblogs in order to experience the invective and the hatred; it’s out there in the real world and it is getting worse. Some of the people who have let fly their unsavory and out-of-control emotions have directed at me when I have said or done nothing to deserve it. And I did not respond in kind. Nor was I allowed any time or space to defend myself, which I would have done in a rational and civil manner. But, yes, I have occasionally been denigrative towards Leftists in the blogosphere, because, frankly, they deserve it sometimes.
But, as a former Leftist I can say this one positive thing about SOME of these people: they sincerely believe that their policy preferences would materially benefit the least among us. And I share their humanitarian concerns. I just think that massive government redistribution of income is not the way to achieve the desired results.
The most positive thing that the Left can do in order to make the debate about society go in a more positive direction is to dial down the hot fulmination of BDS.
Aug 4, 2008 - 11:25 am 22. chuck,:No doubt there’s wisdom in what you say, Anchoress, but jargon like “dehumanize” and “shared humanity” really makes me want to go down to Walmart and buy a chainsaw. I know it’s very wicked of me to feel this way but….
Aug 4, 2008 - 11:28 am 23. On Polarization and De-Humanization « New Wineskins:[...] On Polarization and De-Humanization A hearty endorsement for Elizabeth Scalia’s (aka, The Anchoress‘) latest piece over at Pajamas Media: [...]
Aug 4, 2008 - 11:35 am 24. Jvette:Awwww…Can’t we all just get along?
Really, what we are seeing today is an explosion of pent up frustration and anger at the way our elected officials have totally botched the greatest governing experiment in history. For years conservatives have been silenced, shut out of public debate by a media that showed only one side of the story.
Now, we have a voice. We can respond to the demonization of us and our leaders with a little demonization of our own. For too long we have not had a media to call our own and now with the internet and talk radio we can at least get out the message.
Calling people names or using their names to express displeasure with their policies is nothing new. Look into campaigns from the past and one will see it has always been thus.
I have nothing good to say about Pelosi or Reid because to do so will give them a credibility they do not deserve. Some positions cannot be compromised and if it takes a little creative license to get that point across, so be it.
Honestly, is there anything more annoying than hearing a Republican member of Congress going on and on about their esteemed colleagues? When have the Democrats ever said similar? Never, instead they call our President a liar and a loser, our soldiers cold blooded murderers and conservatives, racist and greedy.
There is a war going on for the future of this country. It is not a time for niceties or for the feint of heart.
Aug 4, 2008 - 11:44 am 25. ginsocal:Nancy is…, well, Nancy might,…no… Ah. I got nuthin’.
Aug 4, 2008 - 11:57 am 26. Charlie (Colorado):Folks, at least part of the point here — and I htink jesus had it too — is that when you dehumanize your “opponent” you hurt yourself. Here’s a Buddhist example, about Jesse Helms, but it could easily be written about some people’s comments about Pelosi.
Aug 4, 2008 - 11:59 am 27. harold:I don’t know any of these politicians personally, but I’ve never met a person with absolutely no redeeming personal qualities. Almost everyone has more good qualities than bad. I’m very old, so all you earnest young partisans out there should take heart from this revelation.:)
In this silly little world of Us versus Them, words are losing their meanings. For example, when did dislike, disagreement, or even distaste became “hate”?
Aug 4, 2008 - 12:02 pm 28. Jvette:I don’t see what’s dehumanizing about calling Pelosi, Pelousy or Nazi Pelousy. What is done by this is more ridiculing than dehumanizing. No one has called for her death or for evil to befall her. It is a way to show contempt for them and their policies. All this hand wringing over what are just silly names. Childish maybe but they do make a point.
As for praying for them. I am a Catholic who is appalled by the positions of her and other “catholics” in Congress. I do pray for them and all others who lead this country. I pray that they will see the error of their ways and understand the harm their policies do.
I have to ask you Fred, you say that you believe that they sincerely believe that the policies they promote with benefit the least among us. How is that possible when every bit of empirical evidence from the last 40 years has shown that the liberal policies have done nothing to lift people out of poverty, educate them for a productive citizenship or strengthened their families?
Aug 4, 2008 - 12:15 pm 29. TomJW:pch1013:
Aug 4, 2008 – 10:09 am
My old friend! Given the topic here, are you ready to take back your lie equating the Obama/Wright relationship with the McCain/Hagee relationship in the ‘Obams Train Wreck’ thread? Now’s a good time.
Aug 4, 2008 - 12:32 pm 30. pch1013:“is there anything more annoying than hearing a Republican member of Congress going on and on about their esteemed colleagues? When have the Democrats ever said similar? Never[...]”
Nonsense. When Harry Reid was asked his thoughts about the indictment of his colleague Ted Stevens, he didn’t call him a racist, greedy baby-killer; instead he said, “It’s a sad day for us, a sad day for him. I believe in the American system of justice that he’s presumed innocent.” And Dick Durbin remarked, “We fight like cats and dogs over issues and amendments, but you can’t wish ill to your colleagues and Sen. Stevens and his family are going to face a very difficult time.”
Aug 4, 2008 - 12:47 pm 31. fred:Jvette,
If you read my post carefully, you will note that my conviction is that massive redistribution of wealth will not work. Also, if you’ve been on pj media for awhile, you might have come across some of my posts where I state that socialism is a failure: it has failed everywhere it has been tried, without exception, and will always be a failure. I find myself fortunate to be able to see these things clearly, because my undergrad degree is in economics, I have an M.A. in Philosophy from when I was a Jesuit seminarian (so I know the history of ideas quite well, especially Marxism and the Frankfurt School revisionist Marxists), and my M.B.A. is in Finance. So, I’ve been privileged to look at this things from many angles. Also, I studied a lot of Liberation Theology, which is another Leftist ideology (and I was at one time a supporter of it), which is why I crossed paths with the critiques of it by Michael Novak and William Buckley, Jr.
What I did say was that I shared with the Left an abiding concern for those among us who the least and who have been left behind. I’ve been inside of their experience, and I can tell you that a lot of people do not understand it at all. I parted company from Marxism because I saw its ethical lacunae and the ways it just does not work. I don’t believe in bashing my head against a brick wall. If the truth leads me in another direction, then I will follow it. I do not share with the Left the ideological rigidity that it manifests. Also, intellectually the Left has been devolving, not evolving, for the last two decades. To the point where much of now is reduced to barking, fulminating creatures who have taken leave of their senses. Forging an alliance with the Muslims and with other terrorist groups they consider to be “liberation” groups, I now know I made the right decision to leave the Left when I did.
Aug 4, 2008 - 1:27 pm 32. Jvette:Doesn’t discount that both these men have made comments on the floor of the Senate which equate our President with Hitler and our troops with the minions of Stalin and Pol Pot.
If you read these carefully, they are not a kind words about Sen. Stevens just a comment on the situation. Besides, Stevens may have an “R” next to his name, but he is just another corrupt politician who knows how the game is played.
Aug 4, 2008 - 1:37 pm 33. Jvette:Fred, sorry, we seem to have gotten our signals crossed. I did not question that you care for the least among us, or that you have seen that the redistribution of wealth is not the answer to helping those least of us. What I was questioning is why you believe the sincerity of those politicians who continue to push for Marxist, welfare styled socialism.
I understand when one is young and idealistic. I too was a bleeding heart lib in my youth. But, how do you explain elected officials who have been in office for years and know that these policies haven’t worked yet continue to push for them?
Liberals constantly cast conservatives as hard hearted, selfish, greedy and racist. I am none of those things. I do as Jesus asked me to do, feed the hungry, cloth the naked, visit the sick and care for widows and orphans. I don’t let a government program replace my own responsibility for these things. First, because I alone will answer to Jesus. Second, because I have seen the ill effects of government intervention regarding poverty, education and family life.
I apologize if you thought I was questioning you and not your assertion that the “concern” liberals show for the least among us is sincere.
Aug 4, 2008 - 1:59 pm 34. Jvette:Gotta go.
Fred, hope apology is accepted, will check back later if I have a chance.
Aug 4, 2008 - 2:08 pm 35. ST333:I’m of the “treat others the way you want to be treated” mindset. I’m more then happy to debate anyone like an adult and “keep it clean” but I’m also willing to oblige a mudslinger. Hurl an insult my way and most likely I’m going to escalate the insults depending on the forum. In public I’d most likely walk away or ignore a bomb thrower all together since worse case scenario would be a physical altercation.
Aug 4, 2008 - 2:15 pm 36. Wilson:“where I state that socialism is a failure: it has failed everywhere it has been tried, without exception, and will always be a failure.”
Really? I had not heard that Sweden was a failed country nor Denmark or any other “socialist” countries that seem to be doing remarkably well, must be the “liberal media”. I find it amusing that the small percentage of US right-wing extremists call the small percentage of US left-wing extremists “socialists” while true socialists would call the US left-wing “Center right” as is practiced in Europe. However, please, continue your one-sided debate amongst yourselves.
Aug 4, 2008 - 2:18 pm 37. DCGamer:Jvette …
“As for praying for them. I am a Catholic who is appalled by the positions of her and other “catholics” in Congress. I do pray for them and all others who lead this country. I pray that they will see the error of their ways and understand the harm their policies do.
Aug 4, 2008 – 12:15 pm”
As a Catholic, Jvette, you should show more humility and should realize that you are also a sinner. To pray that Speaker Pelosi “sees the error of (her) ways” is to say to God, “I know that I am right. Please make Speaker Pelosi come around to my position.”
I think a more appropriate prayer would be to ask God to give Speaker Pelosi the wisdom and strength to do what is best for the country.
That being said, I think Speaker Pelosi is doing an abysmal job, and I disagree with her almost 100%. I will do what I can to make her party the minority party in the next election. However, there is merit to Ms. Scalia’s exercise. Therefore I would say that I admire Speaker Pelosi’s strenth. It must be difficult to hold her position in what is still a male-dominated environment.
Aug 4, 2008 - 2:32 pm 38. fred:Wilson,
What is the long-term Gross Domestic Product of Sweden’s economy? At least half of one’s income is taken away in taxes, so there are limited incentives to work longer hours and sacrifice a lot to grow a company. Alcoholism in Scandinavia is very high. So are suicide rates, as hopelessness and dreariness seem to obtain. What is the long-term rate of unemployment in Sweden, and in the rest of Scandinavia?
How is multiculturalism and political correctness working out for the Swedish women of Malmo who have been raped and assaulted by Muslims during the past decade? No one dares to speak about against Islam in Scandinavia. Gun ownership is severely restricted.
But yeah, if you don’t mind being on unemployment for years, or when you are working having at least half of what you earn taken by the government in taxes, sure, Sweden is a paradise for you.
Wilson, why don’t you go live in Europe, the Social-Democratic Utopia? If that’s the model you like, knock yourself out. However, most Americans do not want to imitate Western Europe, either in its economy or in its legal culture, where people are not allowed to defend themselves against criminals and terrorists. Only the State is allowed to do that for them, if it can do it at all.
Aug 4, 2008 - 2:45 pm 39. SallyO:Thanks for articulating so well one of the problems we’re facing. Name-calling has been going on for centuries, and look at the damage it’s done. We’ve been critical of the divides in other countries: the Sunnies and Shias; the Palestinians and the Israelis, the Protestants and Catholics of Ireland, etc., but I think we’re becoming too much like them with such hatred and name-calling going on between the Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. If someone were to look at our newspapers and read the Internet comments without knowing our society, they’d think we were in the middle of a civil war. I fear for the future of this nation if we don’t get past this mindset of hate that’s raging right now.
Aug 4, 2008 - 3:28 pm 40. kabud:That old saying, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but name will never hurt me” just isn’t true. Words DO hurt. And leaders, both good and bad, are human beings with needs and feelings, strengths and weaknesses, just like the rest of us. Thanks again for the reminder about the need for civility, which is the only way we’re going to solve our nation’s problems.
it is very stupid and defeatist position author promotes:
WHY DO WE HAVE TO BEND OUR SELFS BACKWARDS and legitimize
LIARS? TRAITORS? CORRUPTED SHMAKS?
Dont u have a minimum dignity to start looking for the truth?
Actually a WILL to learn what is going on?
Don’t u understand that it is GOOD TO HAVE AN OPINION BASED ON TRUTH AND UNDERSTANDING OF REALLY COMPLEX ISSUES OF MASS MANIPULATION DONE THRU MSM?
Get some tooth, some bite!
Aug 4, 2008 - 3:50 pm 41. Wade:I have been waiting for someone to write this article. I have been involved in too many “discussions” that quickly turn venomous even when people are merely taking a “devil’s advocate” point of view for the sake of argument. I HATE terms like McSame and Obamunist (though Obamanaut I like…Okay, I can’t use that either, to be fair). I really wish we could all discuss differences reasonably on occasion. And Clinton-haters were almost as bad as Bush-haters…the McCain haters on the immigration side too…
Aug 4, 2008 - 3:53 pm 42. chuck,:Things have come to such a state that I really do think, and I’ll say it most politely and with all due recognition of our shared humanity, that this country isn’t big enough for the two of us. Now if you’ll kindly excuse me, I got to catch a bus to Missouri, where General Sherman is sleeping. “General! General! Wake up! We got more work to do!:”
Aug 4, 2008 - 3:56 pm 43. kabud:As far as love your enemy: WRONG
U should read Jung, the Shadow of Christianity concept
Communism it is: the satanic shadow.
A flaw in the Christianity lies in the refusal to recognize EVIL for what it is
This must be corrected or evil will take over. And this is not a figure of speech.
We have to get them, put to justice and HANG. Or they will exterminate us all with anthrax and NUKES
Aug 4, 2008 - 4:07 pm 44. Jvette:DCgamer, I don’t know where you get that I do not know that I am a sinner or that I lack humility. I am appalled at Pelosi’s support of abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia. I do not claim to be right, but follow the teachings of my church which says that all of these things are intrinsically evil. When I say that she should see the error of her ways, I mean that she and others are not forming their conscience and public policy to their professed religion’s stance. God, through the teachings of her church has already given her the wisdom, all she has to do is accept it. It is she who assumes to tell God that she is right,substituting the clear teachings of her church for her own wisdom.
Her policies hurt families and promote sinful lifestyles. So, I pray that she will see that her policies are in error not just with her church but with reality.
There is a huge difference between being a sinner and deliberately going against what God has revealed to you through your church.
So, when I pray for her I pray that she will see her errors and use her substantive power to promote life, family and a culture that respects both. I am not in the same position as Pelosi, who has abused the power she has gained and brought mockery to her faith.
Aug 4, 2008 - 5:27 pm 45. leah:I remember watching video during Clinton’s term of school children taking a tour, I believe of the White House during the holiday season. A young African-American girl’s hair brushed a lit candle causing it to smolder. Mr. Clinton had come in to visit the group and using his bare hands extinguished the smoke coming from the girl’s head. It seemed to me a parent’s gut reaction to a small child–any child–in distress. The image always stayed with me as a reminder of the common bond between parents.
Aug 4, 2008 - 5:29 pm 46. Steynian 215 « Free Mark Steyn!:[...] LET’S DEBATE, Not Dehumanize, by Elizabeth Scalia …. [...]
Aug 4, 2008 - 5:32 pm 47. fred:kabud,
You are wrong about Christianity having a flaw in recognizing evil. Also, to love your enemy does not mean to allow your enemies to do whatever they want with you. It just means that you still owe them the minimum standards that are owed to all human beings, since human beings belong to God and hence are under God’s judgment. You can have enemies and you can also fight them if warranted.
Christianity has to be the most misunderstood religion of them all.
Aug 4, 2008 - 5:36 pm 48. RE:Fred: “Christianity has to be the most misunderstood religion of them all.”
That’s only because so few make an honest effort to understand it. But perhaps that’s by design. “Seek and you shall find” (Luke 11:9-10) tells us it is an active endeavor.
Aug 4, 2008 - 5:50 pm 49. Thrasymachus:Hmm. Here goes:
“I think that George W. Bush sincerely believes in the goodness and justice of his cause; and he has never lacked the courage of his convictions. His vision of the perfectability of the world and of humanity has been in keeping with the noblest traditions of American Democracy.”
Hm. That really *wasn’t* so hard. . .
Aug 4, 2008 - 6:01 pm 50. kabud:fred:
Yes, man, i know, it is hard for me to comprehend.
I was refering to Shadow concept, because Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were warning of the same kind of atrocities that 20th century brought
And Jung was trying to explain it thru Shadow complex in a way that
if evil is not properly recognized and dealt with- it may prevail
I will have to give it some more thought
Aug 4, 2008 - 7:13 pm 51. robotech master:thank you for moral support though
To Wilson
How long did the USSR last? Socialism is a matter of time… the outcome is however always the same. Europe will fail soon enough. One of the things that many fail to understand is europe is heavily subsidized by the US. The US spends billions on the UN, NATO, US army…. all of europe put together barely comes to half the spending that the US does. If you remove the UK out of the picture europe can basically only defend itself. It has no navy. Barely any ground forces. Short of a massive draft combined with human wave attacks europe is helpless. Europe is also heavily reducing its armed forces to meet its socialist budgets. We also directly pay money into the EU by renting army bases which are used to protect it.
Next look at any research… the US doesn’t between 30-80% of all research in every field. Then add in US companies fund huges amounts of research across the world… Without this research socialist health care would still be stuck in the 60s… much like the way the USSR was decades behind the US. Most of the drugs that hit the markets are invented in the US.
Europe has been able to build and flourish because of the huge sums of US tax dollars to this day that flown into it. They know that the US will protect them no matter how low they cut their army budgets… In the end the US is holding the world both together and at peace… and the strain is showing. If WW3 were to break out with russia and china attacking the US… but offering peace deals with the EU… other then the UK who do you think would side with the US? Most EU countries would happily sit it out. Other then the UK its doubtful many would lift and finger… and of those(like poland) who couldn’t do anything even if they wanted to.
Like all socialist ideas they purposely leave out out the whole picture. This is the biggest problem…socialists only look at the picture of what they choose to see not what the world is really like, because of this it can never hold the fantasy together and sooner(rarely later) it will fail. Socialism can never work in a vacuum.
Aug 5, 2008 - 12:31 am 52. Jake Was Here:Despite my animus toward the left, I cannot fault any of them for their belief in the essential goodness and nobility of humankind and the power of good intentions. They credit Homo sapiens with a great deal of strength and power, perhaps more than we humans actually have; as the global-warming debate shows quite clearly, the Left thinks that we all have in our hands the power to kill the world and the power to save it. These are not ideals to which I am fundamentally opposed.
My main beef with the left, I suppose, is their naivete about the cold hard facts of reality. Like them, I believe human beings (and the world at large) can be improved. Unlike them, I do NOT believe that humankind or the world can be PERFECTED or single-handedly, decisively SAVED, especially not overnight or over the course of a single presidential administration.
What the left needs to get through their heads is that the fate of the planet is NOT entirely in our hands, and that mankind cannot become perfect– we can only try to be better.
Aug 5, 2008 - 12:41 am 53. tgb1000:The Anchoress is lecturing us about name calling and vitriol? Hello Pot, meet the Kettle.
Aug 5, 2008 - 3:44 am 54. Charles Giacometti:What’s truly dehumanizing here is the author’s sloppy and transparent attempt to claim–once again, with almost no evidence–that Adkisson hated Christians, when all the evidence suggests he hated and specifically targeted liberals.
I realize it is hard for the wingnuts to accept that one of their own is a terrorist, but he is. And he was driven to his terrorist act by the name-calling and hate-mongering on your side.
Deal with it.
Aug 5, 2008 - 4:36 am 55. tanstaafl:Try saying one good thing about someone you don’t like — whether it’s George Bush or Nancy Pelosi.
Ok. Nancy’s suits are nice. (the beads are a bit much, tho’)
I consider her personal obfuscation and stubbornness inimical to the country, so it’s hard to find some “positive” thoughts.
Aug 5, 2008 - 8:59 am 56. tanstaafl:Jim D. Adkisson — his humanity subsumed by his hate — unloaded his shotgun on people who had become mere labels to him. They had become “others.” They had become “theys.”
Adkisson wanted a target, and the Unitarian church was a target of convenience. Just the same as the assassin at Virginia Tech and too many other parallel kinds of incidents in this country.
Where an individual of marginal stability picks an object for attack, it likely has less to do with his (philosophical or otherwise) personal grievances than with his own anger and instability.
Sometimes that instability might be mitigated by “kindness” towards him, sometimes not.
These kinds of behaviors don’t have much to do with religious arguments, in my view.
Aug 5, 2008 - 9:18 am 57. kabud:robotech master:
i copied your excellent analysis to my blog THANK YOU
Aug 5, 2008 - 12:25 pm 58. Jesus warrior:http://xyu.livejournal.com/675644.html
Clinton was like a father on the prowl, that got caught often. Obama is dangerous he have not voted on any major issues, he a former drug user I think, former because he said he used but never stated when he stopped. He also brag about selling drugs, the same question when did he stop. Then without a telepromter Obama can communicate to anyone.
Aug 5, 2008 - 5:54 pm 59. Jbl:“What’s truly dehumanizing here is the author’s sloppy and transparent attempt to claim–once again, with almost no evidence–that Adkisson hated Christians, when all the evidence suggests he hated and specifically targeted liberals”
hmmm…FTA: Initial reports were that Adkisson had “problems with Christians.” Later reports suggested he also had “problems” with “the liberal movement” and with gays. Predictably, people on both the right and left immediately staked out claims of victimhood and identified each other as the true culprits upon whom both blame and condemnation must rain down.
Seems an accurate reflection of “initial reports” and “later reports”, with links.
Aug 5, 2008 - 6:53 pm 60. Charles Giacometti:Except, jbl, the “initial report” was one random neighbor and the real reports were from, well, the police, you know.
Like I said, Adkisson is a terrorist for your side. Deal with it.
Aug 5, 2008 - 9:04 pm 61. notropis:So, Charlie, I guess you’d qualify as one on the left who staked out a claim of victimhood and identified those on the right as the true culprits upon whom blame and condemnation must rain down.
Seems like Elizabeth got it exactly right.
What was that nice thing you were going to say about someone you disagreed with, again? Or are you exempt from that, since only right-wing hate speech leads to violence?
Aug 5, 2008 - 11:57 pm 62. Charles Giacometti:Actually notropis, there is absolutely no question of victimhood here–a wingnut terrorist went into a liberal church and slaughtered as many people as he could. Fortunately, there were courageous people who stopped his suicide attack before he could kill more.
What Elizabeth sloppily attempted to do is equate the stories that he hated Christians with the reality that he specifically targeted religious liberals. I am sure she and others (Cornfed Yankee) would love to believe that. They would like to claim victimhood where there is no basis. (Freud would have a field day with that–why wingnuts burst into flames and cry victim when their terrorist goes on a rampage.)
It’s crystal clear whom your terrorist was targeting.
I have mentioned this elsewhere. It would be instructive for people to look at what the Boston pro-life and pro-choice communities did in the wake of the John Salvi murders (he shot up two abortion clinics, killing 2 or 3 people). They quietly sat down and talked about the issue. They lowered the temperature. Elizabeth is vaguely making the same point, but her bias trips her up. The difference is that in the Salvi case the pro-life people acknowledged at the start that they helped create the monster. They didn’t bizarrely claim he was trying to slaughter Christians. Just like a 12 step program–you start by admitting you have a problem.
The only question is whether the wingnuts can accept that they have blood on their hands. Based on your anonymous and snarky response, I can tell that you are too much of a coward to deal with that reality. That is only your problem, not mine.
Aug 6, 2008 - 6:41 am 63. Charles Giacometti:As far as saying something nice, that is superficial. Let me say this instead. I have a deep and abiding respect for many Republicans, including McCain. He is not the enemy. He is not un-American. Indeed, he is a war hero, a very effective senator, and a person to be admired. He won’t get my vote, of course, but that’s the name of the game.
Aug 6, 2008 - 6:46 am 64. Lex Rationis:Great Article!
Aug 6, 2008 - 2:09 pm 65. hp:had someone called me a half-hearted, low blow name on a thread recently. they did it to do exactly that. dehumanize me in their eyes and i recognized it as such immediately.
what it told me was that i was successfully holding my own pitch after pitch as they were trying all the while to bully their opinion down my throat.
did the best thing i could after reading what they called me. turned cheek and went to another thread where they were not.
too much to do. too little time to do it in so that kind of sandbox play is out.
about them, i will say: they are true to their convictions.
Aug 16, 2008 - 4:54 am 66. Sept 16; Vespers | The Anchoress:[...] times are also the times I find myself most tempted to forget about the humanity of the politicians we write about, and that is where I try really hard not to [...]
Sep 16, 2008 - 3:27 pm 67. McCain Volunteer attacked & maimed? | The Anchoress:[...] then we need to seriously look at how we – as a nation – have learned (with the help of the press) to dehumanize one another to a new and frightening [...]
Oct 23, 2008 - 5:56 pm 68. Bush, Obama, & Ghosts | The Anchoress:[...] ideology trumped having a decent respect for another’s humanity. I wrote about that a little here: Thus, George W. Bush is “Chimpy McHitler.” Hillary Clinton is “a pig in a pantsuit.” [...]
Nov 6, 2008 - 11:02 am 69. Bush, Obama, & Ghosts of Hate « The Sassy Tn’T PoLITicallY InCorrect:[...] that ideology trumped having a decent respect for another’s humanity. I wrote about that a little here: Thus, George W. Bush is “Chimpy McHitler.” Hillary Clinton is “a pig in a pantsuit.” [...]
Nov 7, 2008 - 10:51 pm