Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba
TS-- --------------- I strongly suspect that the president is goading his opposition into the types of debates as evidenced in this thread in order to 'divide and conquer.' He seeks to radicalize his opposition into militant/revolutionary rhetoric to keep his own supporters from listening to what we have to say.
So when I voice my disagreement with views that the current president is a socialist, a communist, or a fascist, I do so not simply as a matter of political theory or historical interpretation--and definitely not to antagonize members of this BB--but because I feel that when we resort to such labels, we are playing into his hands.
My $0.02.
|
"Historian" - There might be something to your argument we should all be considering. Ideas motivate and words mean things. Who's winning the "hearts and minds?"  Mao 101 says "Create a climate for revolution". Phase One of a US sponsored insurgency = "Create a climate for revolution". Everybody says "set the stage". Now the question becomes "who gains and maintains the sympathy of the audience?" After all - they're the ones who will decide if the show was worth the money (sacrifice).
__________________
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero (42B.C)
|