Projection
Shrinkwrapped has a rather scary analysis of what is going on right now, as exemplified by the unholy row the Democrats are raising over The Path to 9/11. This is a classic case of projection with terrifying implications.
[As an aside I do not blame the Clinton or Bush administration for 9/11. Our society was singularly unable to take the threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism seriously. The nature of a democracy is that we are slow to respond to threats; in fact, we rarely respond to attacks until after they occur. We would not have entered WWII without Pearl Harbor and would not have engaged the Islamists in the current war without 9/11. In the first case, Japan was wholly responsible; in the second case, al Qaeda was wholly responsible.]
When powerful government officials begin to use intimidation openly, it is chilling, to say the least. Perhaps all the claims of incipient fascism that the left sees all around it embodied in the Republicans is a projection of their own authoritarian tendencies. This is, of course, not a novel idea; the left has been accused of authoritarianism for quite some time. What is most troubling is the apparent lack of awareness of the impact and importance of this letter from the most powerful and important members of the Democratic party.
I would not expect the DU crowd to show any awareness of their own projections; they are quite openly authoritarian and are willing to use almost any means to silence those they oppose. This kind of authoritarian silencing of those who do not espouse the proper political line is also common in academia, which is troubling but not surprising. When the disease of authoritarianism, the readiness to silence one's opponents rather than engage them, has spread to the core of one of the two major parties, the danger to our political system is real, though one hopes it is transient.
This ties into exactly what I have been saying for the past couple of days. It can be seen in the comment sections of several posts.
Blogosphere, Left Wing, Politics | Gaius Friday, 8 September , 2006
By Neo, Friday, 8 September , 2006 @ 7:53 pm
When I came across this interview my jaw nearly dropped to the ground.
Q: I mean, isn’t it the case that this film actually does show Sandy Berger hanging up the phone in the middle of a conference call, when there are U.S. personnel whose lives are at risk on the ground, and they have bin Laden in their sights, and that really nothing like that ever happened?
KEAN: Well, the question, Shaun, is whether — whether it was Sandy Berger, or whether it was the head of the CIA? Whether the call was hung up on or whether it was totally — whether it was disrupted by a failure in communications? I mean, these are all historically, I think, open questions. But again, this is a, you know, this is a miniseries, not a documentary.
It’s not like the scene that has been so upsetting never happened, but rather the detail of how the phone call ended is in dispute. It’s absolutely unbelieveable that anyone would demand changes of this type of thing.
By Blackhawk, Friday, 8 September , 2006 @ 8:50 pm
It gets worse (from Hot Air):
Meltdown: Dean, Berger, Albright, lefty historians demand “Path†be cancelled
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/08/meltdown-dean-berger-albright-lefty-historians-demand-path-be-edited-cancelled/
Just for Roland’s sake: this is censorship, pure, blatant, and simple.
OBTW, isn’t the FCC part of the Executive Branch of government? Just how do the Dems think they’re going to yank ABC’s license, unless it’s a threat (and wishful thinking) for 08?