Confessions of a former Republican
So much for surgical precision and winning hearts and minds. I had grown up believing that we were more careful in our use of force, that we only punished those who deserved punishment. But in just a few weeks in Iraq, it became apparent that what we were doing to the Iraqis, as well as to our own people, was inexcusable.
© 2012 TomDispatch Today, I wonder if Mitt Romney drones on about not apologizing for America because he, like the former version of me, simply isn't aware of the U.S. ever doing anything that might demand an apology. Then again, no one wants to feel like a bad person, and there's no need to apologize if you are oblivious to the harms done in your name -- calling the occasional ones you notice collateral damage ("stuff happens") -- or if you believe that American force is always applied righteously in a world that is justly divided into winners and losers.
A Painful Transition
An old saw has it that no one profits from talking about politics or religion. I think I finally understand what it means. We see different realities, different worlds. If you and I take in different slices of reality, chances are that we aren't talking about the same things. I think this explains much of modern American political dialogue.
My old Republican worldview was flawed because it was based upon a small and particularly rosy sliver of reality. To preserve that worldview, I had to believe that people had morally earned their "just" desserts, and I had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to point out that the world didn't actually work that way. I think this shows why Republicans put so much effort into "creat[ing] our own reality," into fostering distrust of liberals, experts, scientists, and academics, and why they won't let a campaign "be dictated by fact-checkers" (as a Romney pollster put it). It explains why study after study shows -- examples here, here, and here -- that avid consumers of Republican-oriented media are more poorly informed than people who use other news sources or don't bother to follow the news at all.
Waking up to a fuller spectrum of reality has proved long and painful. I had to question all my assumptions, unlearn so much of what I had learned. I came to understand why we Republicans thought people on the Left always seemed to be screeching angrily (because we refused to open our eyes to the damage we caused or blamed the victims) and why they never seemed to have any solutions to offer (because those weren't mentioned in the media we read or watched).
My transition has significantly strained my relationships with family, friends, and former colleagues. It is deeply upsetting to walk on thin ice where there used to be solid, common ground. I wish they, too, would come to see a fuller spectrum of reality, but I know from experience how hard that can be when your worldview won't let you.
No one wants to feel like a dupe. It is embarrassing to come out in public and admit that I was so miseducated when so much reality is out there in plain sight in neighborhoods I avoided, in journals I hadn't heard of, in books by authors I had refused to read. (So I take courage from the people who have done so before me like Andrew Bacevich.)
Many people see the wider spectrum of reality because they grew up on the receiving end. As a retired African-American general in the Marine Corps said to me after I told him my story, "No one has to explain institutional racism to a black man."
Others do because they grew up in families that simply got it. I married a woman who grew up in such a family, for whom all of my hard-earned, painful "discoveries" are old news. Each time I pull another layer of wool off my eyes and feel another surge of anger, she gives me a predictable series of looks. The first one more or less says, "Duh, obviously." The second is sympathetic, a recognition of the pain that comes with dismantling my flawed worldview. The third is concerned: "Do people actually think that?"
Yes, they do.
Jeremiah Goulka writes about American politics and culture. His most recent work has been published in the American Prospect and Salon. He was formerly an analyst at the RAND Corporation, a recovery worker in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, and an attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice. He lives in Washington, D.C. You can follow him on Twitter @jeremiahgoulka or contact him at jeremiah@jeremiahgoulka.com. His website is jeremiahgoulka.com. To listen to Timothy MacBain's latest Tomcast audio interview in which Goulka discusses his political journey, click here or download it to your iPod here. This piece originally appeared on TomDispatch. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
- prev
- no next page
4/4
Most people of today would be shocked if they actually understood all 87 federalist papers. I haven't read them all, and I'm shocked at the presumptions, the omissions, the inferences, and the total disregard for contrary opinions. It's a real reality check.
Any actual Republicans can no longer remain loyal to a bunch of radical, extremist misfits.
The TV reporter put two men outside in one of New York City's busiest intersections to hail cabs. One was a causally dressed White Man. The other a well-dressed Black man.
What happened? Well, no surprise to me, cab after cab, stopped to pick up the White gentleman. The Black guy, an ocassional cab would stop for him. I don't recall the numbers, but just guessing in the same time period about 20 or so cabs stopped for the White Guy, and 1 or 2 for the Black guy.
At the end of the experiment, the White actor turned and said "Now, I get it".
His lesson took a lot less time the author of this article but the point was he finally "got it". I can assure you as a hard-working Black woman, to those of you who think it is our imagination, it is not.
Along with a bunch of other anecdotal gibberish his argument is made on two main premises: (see paragraph 3) New Orleans and Iraq.
Issue1: Louisiana and especially New Orleans, has a backwards education system, a corrupt legal system, and government that allowed institutional racism.
Facts: Since 1877 22 of the 25 Louisiana Governors have been Democrats, New Orleans has had Democrats for Mayor's since 1936, the last Republican mayor was in 1872. The author criticizes the federal response which was slow, no doubt. But the federal deficiencies here were easily eclipsed by the ineptitude, lack of planning and preparation by its city and State government. His conclusion to all of this.....it's the Republicans fault.
Issue 2: Iraq was a bad idea and the surge a worse one (yes a Republican President authorized it but there was plenty of backing from both parties... and this debate is too old to bring back up). He states "he thought he know a lot about war" and that before Iraq he was under the understanding that since 1775 we administered a precise global justice. I guess his military expertise must have been limited to TV shows and movies. Did he never hear about atomic bombs and carpet bombings? Both Republicans and Democrats have been dishing those out for decades. Not too precise compared to what were using now.
He was "told" (by who?) that insurgent attacks came less frequent during the surge. The surge was the "death rattle" of the bulk of the insurgency, it was called a surge because it increased the pressure, of course that resulted in more conflict, we were finishing off the bulk of the insurgency in kinetic operations. And owe yeah, Jeremiah, working for an insurgent group for cash doesn't make you innocent. The rest of his rant on Iraq is so full of anecdotal rhetoric it's not worth addressing. Finally, the orchestrator of this surge strategy (which is lauded as brilliant by most actual military experts in the U.S. and around the world) must have been such a bain to the Democrats given that President Obama later appointed General Petraeus as the Director of the CIA. There's more I could say but this is already too long.
Finally, he goes on to say how Republicans are "creating their own reality" and don't want to "be dictated by fact-checkers". Maybe this guy should fact check his own crappy article.
Issue 2 Isn't it wonderful how one party's mistakes are totally irrelevent after only 5 or 10 years, while the other party's supposed misdeeds going back 140 years are relevent when you are trying to divert attention from your own party's mistakes.
Both parties have made countless mistakes especially recently and neither of them seem interested in solving problems as much as they are interested in tearing down eath other. We need someone who will build up the country and borrow the good ideas from each party and shut up all the haters and selfish do nothings and rebuild this great nation.
Undeniably the charge into Iraq was led by Republicans but it's hardly a "one party mistake" take a look at the number of Democrats that voted to support the war, there's plenty and I can send you sabre rattling rhetoric from Democrats before the war all day long. Besides, my problem with the author here isn't his stance against the war but that he shomehow tries to tie the most successful campaign of the war to Republicans (it was a military strategy, not a political one) and then say it was a failure (which by both parties standards it wasn't) and then says it was more reason to not be a Republic. Ask me, this guy is a phony convert. It's not the issues I disagree with, it's ommitting key facts and blatent partisnship.
I agree with your final comment and from the beginning I said the fed's were slow to Katrina and hard chargers into Iraq. The beef I have with the author is he leaves out key information on the Democrats control of New Orleans and Louisiana and support for Iraq and holds them completely harmless in both cases.
The main problem with the Republican Party is, they can't empathize with people in dire circumstances. Most of them are born into privilege, or lose sight of where they came from AFTER they become better off. They are led by right wing ideologues to believe these myths about society. It's no coincidence that right wing ideology has gotten so extreme at the same time conservative media has become so prominent.
This person is really a liberal.
The only folks that are dillusioned former Republican party members become aligned w/ the Tea Party - never liberals.