Today's thought flow -- early thoughts IN DEVELOPMENT and NOT organized as I would usually wish to do -- no stirring conclusion to wrap it up -- I'm wandering in this, too --, presented for your initial consideration/amusement/additions/corrections/flames (I`m working on thickening my hide):
(Like my friend b6, I'm not getting much work done, this first month here. I wake up and leap from thought to thought, with 5 or 6 Kos windows open to different diaries. It's all here. My major interests here so far are heading off a US flare-up of fascist repression, and helping ideas for dKos re-design to allow groups to form ACTION CIRCLES.)
This morning I watched Tom Selleck's portrayal of "Ike", newly out on DVD, his planning and decision-making leading up to D-Day. The weight on this man, and the idealism that a military leader can have before him, in a necessary conflict, was presented 100%; I recommend this film to all. Removing Hitler: what more could one ask for as a military purpose? The film sets a mood, and it reveals a time, that may be contrasted with our own.
The role of a general as a father and authority figure to younger men -- and Eisenhower was an excellent fulfiller of that role -- played through my mind all day. Until my brief first introduction to the FreeRepublic site, where fifteen minutes of reading their bitter iconoclasm has left me with the impression of "lost boys" (if not "Lord of the Flies") looking for a legitimate father figure.
You may criticize people's politics, and argue logically that they should be otherwise. But if you do not probe why they became that way, you are just pissin' into the wind.
And it is mostly unconscious, and they cannot tell you why. Unconscious people are the products of experiences they do not themselves understand. You have to listen, with every level you've learned in your life to listen on. (As well as hold that same mirror to your own face as frequently as needed.)
I also want to put in a plug for spending your own time visiting with "conservative" websites, churches, Party meetings, to satisfy youself that you have listened to these people and their concerns, frustrations, and desires. To get your own impression about overcoming the evil tendencies that may be before us.
I've been thinking about the bible quote about "not contending with men, but with Principalities and Powers". It's not personal. People who have adopted a shallow political philosophy may be detached from it more easily, if their little-understood concerns are addressed. They are in it to get their itch scratched -- and they never can. Opposing them personally, or physically, is guaranteed to harden the obsession. ("Never threaten a paranoid...")
I know we shy away from pop-psyching one another (and I know I should research previous efforts here, but diaries fly by so fast, you tell me if I ought to hold off tonight?) but the sad fact that presents itself to me is that George Bush and the Republicans (and the neo-cons) have captured the masculine high ground. They have won the allegiance of many young men searching for their own male identity, and of women who respond reflexively to that kind of unthoughtful "firmness". (Real resolve, we understand; but we know his is a cover for not knowing what to do next. But they need someone so badly, they look past this.)
That's pretty pathetic when you consider his personality, hardly a notch above his father's "blind trust" (remember Doonesbury?), but Democrats have not managed to shed the impression that working-class white men will not find any validation among the "Party of inclusion." That Democrats are "under control of 'feminists' and gays". (Some gay friends have given me valuable perspectives on the projecting of male energy. With projection of male political charisma, I could imagine those Freeper boys falling right in line, even for some of them. It`s not logical, for sure. But it is about gender identity.)
I am cutting my questions short here -- two hours is enough -- time for work -- maybe to return another time.
Wondering if my fellow Kosoholics have ideas on projecting MALE energy and identity, toward stirring the loyalties of those on -- let's say -- a less verbal, intellectual, policy-oriented level of political understanding than we exchange here daily. Any examples, pro or con? Any actions to out-Rove Rove, out-Rush Rush?
I think we'd be in even more hot water if Bush were at all a charismatic male figure in his position now; fortunately, we've been spared that extra disadvantage.
It's pretty amazing when you consider that an entire host of non-serving and not very "manly"-presenting Republicans has managed to grasp the mantle of militarism and send thousands to their deaths. And I hope that somewhere, in the core of our military machine, are the career officers who know their tradition; who know how Eisenhower differs from Bush.
Showing people you care for them is not weak, but for men, it usually must project from a fatherly role to avoid that appearance.
A general who cares for his men, who visits them before combat, ("We happy few... we band of brothers...") and suffers for sending them to likely death or injury, is a strong man. Eisenhower chose to be a Republican for his Presidential run -- had to be some core principles there we can summon up -- and he warned us prophetically of the military-industrial complex.
We need strength like that, and a willingness to sacrifice. The duty of a citizen is beyond the mere vote, which may install mean mediocrity, when the clash of ideas demands our full knowledge and passion.
What does it mean to be a man, in this strange political galaxy we trek through today?
"There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." -- Winston Churchill