Grew up in Wealth and Privilege

October 11, 2005

Dan Froomkin is back and he points to a part of Bush’s October terror-speech and a sentence everybody else seems to have missed. Bush on Bin Laden:

Like the ideology of communism, Islamic radicalism is elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the Muslim masses. Bin Laden says his own role is to tell Muslims, quote, "what is good for them and what is not." And what this man who grew up in wealth and privilege considers good for poor Muslims is that they become killers and suicide bombers. He assures them that his — that this is the road to paradise — though he never offers to go along for the ride.

Elitist, grew up in wealth and privilege, sends poor people so rhey become killers and takes care not to go himself. Now who would that be …

Posted by b on October 11, 2005 at 17:42 UTC | Permalink

Comments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

Posted by: Anonymous | Oct 11 2005 19:40 utc | 1

I don’t see as much irony here as enantiodromia. But I’ve beaten this dead horse before.

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 11 2005 19:50 utc | 2

Yes. You could take any speech by the president and find such ironies –er– projections. “They hate us for our freedoms” is one of the best examples.
Many republicans excel in this type of projection: Governor Mitt Romney of Massachussetts recently spoke at a North Carolina GOP fundraiser where he warned of the danger of theocrats planning to take over our government. He was talking about the muslims in the middle east, of course, not the american theocratic christian right wing, to which he belongs.

Posted by: gylangirl | Oct 11 2005 20:32 utc | 3

@gylan – what arethey afraid of? The mirrors? I am still trying to understand what is happening in such minds.

Posted by: b | Oct 11 2005 20:41 utc | 4

@b-
it is a common unconscious psychological human trait i think. you know the old adage ‘point your finger accusatively and there are 3 pointing back at yourself’: they’re unconsciously denying their own foibles and then simultaneously attacking those same foibles in others. Osama and George are psychological mirrors of each other. And so are their unconscious followers.

Posted by: gylangirl | Oct 11 2005 20:52 utc | 5

An administration official whose speech I heard recently referred to Al Qaeda as being “politically and morally bankrupt.” This is someone who works in the Bush White House.

Posted by: mistah charley | Oct 11 2005 20:55 utc | 6

I think future psychiatrists (if any survive) will have a field day with these statements. Does the phrase “pot calling the kettle black” ring a bell? Mind you, enantiodromia sounds so much more impressive.

Posted by: PeeDee | Oct 11 2005 21:23 utc | 7

It’s really not fair to compare George W. Bush and Bin Laden – while both are nutcases, Bin Laden is a proven combat leader.

Posted by: Robert | Oct 11 2005 21:33 utc | 8

gylangirl wrote: “Osama and George are psychological mirrors of each other. And so are their unconscious followers.”
And that is as close to a textbook case of enantiodromia as I have ever seen (viz. the tendency of phenomena to resemble their diametric opposites as they become increasingly polarised). I have warned against the Left’s tendency to become hateful, blind partisans as they oppose the Right, because they begin to develop the same thoughtless “talking point” styles. Republicans and Democrats are already entirely indistinguishable from one another. Those who oppose racism turn into the least colour blind people on Earth. There is only a relative difference between “liberators” and “oppressors”… it merely depends upon where you are standing when you make the call. And it is also why I bristle so regularly when people paint the American people with the same brush they use to describe our (so-called) leadership… it is morally equivalent to calling all Muslims “Islamofascists”.
To address Bernhard’s question about what is happening in “those minds”: it is the same things that happen in all human minds. People are subject to becoming what they ostensibly most despise. It’s just easier to see it when it is happening on a grander scale and to a group that you do not feel that you belong to. But we are all of us prone to it and have to examine ouselves regularly and critically in order not to insidiously become monsters ourselves. Objectivity and self-examination does not, however, seem to be a hallmark of political minds.

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 11 2005 21:37 utc | 9

The line is almost too perfect for comedy — as if Jon Stewart’s team somehow slipped it into the speech. So, maybe somebody on the inside is fed up.

Posted by: ferd | Oct 11 2005 21:58 utc | 10

“Those who oppose racism turn into the least colour blind people on Earth” PING!
yeah perhaps but is the object of those who oppose racism neccessarily the obliteration of peoples tendency to make summations of others according to the feelings that first impressions can invoke or should we be trying to recognise that we can all make judgements according to a predetermined handbasket of values and that we need to acknowledge those values or prejudices so we don’t allow them to unfairly influence our relationship with others?
For example there are a couple of nationalities that I find really confronting to relate to (and no amerikans aren’t one of them) but I try and make myself aware of this when I meet say a Boer from South Africa so that I don’t let whatever may have transpired when relating to other Boers influence this relationship.
Yes it can be a cumbersome way to go about things but the alternative which is to be ‘color blind’ ie ignore those unique aspects of another culture means that we can dismiss the really good and interesting things a culture has developed as well as the aspects which may create negative emotions.
It’s all pretty automatic anyway because we are merely trying to be polite in the real sense of the word rather than the ‘Is this the fish fork?’ sense.
After a while you don’t point the soles of your feet towards anyone not only a Thai.
You don’t sit on any surface that may be or have been used for food preparation and not just in a whare.
And you don’t question anyone’s personal business without an express invitation and not just an Englishman’s.
All of the examples of a particular group’s etiquette have sound underpinnings within that group’s culture for existing. Therefore the least one should do if it is necessary to ‘transgress’ is acknowledge the existence of that stricture.
This doesn’t happen if one chooses to be colorblind. And of course being too rigid or nervous about stuff like this is really uncomfortable and demeaning for a person immersed in a foreign culture.
Any John Cleese fans must remember the episode of Fawlty Towers where the harder Basil tries not to talk about WW2 to a group of German guests the more he does. In fact if I remember correctly his greeting when first meeting them was “We beat you!”. LOL

Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 11 2005 22:26 utc | 11

@Debs
yeah perhaps but is the object of those who oppose racism neccessarily the obliteration of peoples tendency to make summations of others according to the feelings that first impressions can invoke or should we be trying to recognise that we can all make judgements according to a predetermined handbasket of values and that we need to acknowledge those values or prejudices so we don’t allow them to unfairly influence our relationship with others?”
I expect there as many objects, both conscious and unconscious, as there are people adopting a position. The Japanese psychiatrist Takeo Doi does a pretty good job at describing how many of our laudable public policies and positions work to conceal (or at least render palatable) less-than-progressive motives. As Bush the Younger so kindly demonstrated for us, pretty speeches and noble-sounding rhetoric does not always mean what it purports to mean (and in this case, the url to Wikipedia’s entry for irony comes closer to the mark, even if the irony is unintended).
Of course, racism is unjust and should never be institutionalised or even normalised. But even with the best of intentions, a fascination with the subject leads people into some pretty radical conclusions (a là William Bennett’s recent foray into the philosophy of eugenics) or an inability to see anything else (i.e; poor black “looters” vs. poor white “survivors” in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina). Nobody begins the day by plotting and planning to perpetuate evil, but a lack of perspective and obsessive conviction can turn the best of us into Basil Fawlty.
Just something to think about.

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 11 2005 22:55 utc | 12

Second attempt
“Bush acknowledged that acting CIA Director John McLaughlin had said there was no direct connection between Iran and Sept. 11. But the president said he has long expressed his concerns about Iraq, er, uh, Iran.”

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 11 2005 23:57 utc | 13

Bushie is believing his own rhetoric and has forgotten where he came from. He has repeated his time worn talking points so often, they have become his reality.
Tell me he’s not in a bubble!

Posted by: jdp | Oct 12 2005 0:06 utc | 14

Monolycus:

The process by which something becomes its opposite, and the subsequent interaction of the two: applied esp. to the adoption by an individual or by a community, etc., of a set of beliefs, etc., opposite to those held at an earlier stage.

This word was made to describe the transformation of the Jewish nation by its treatment under the Nazis into the monster it has become in its treatment of the Palestinians.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Oct 12 2005 1:33 utc | 15

A couple of years ago I wrote some
ClipArt Comix on this very theme. Scroll down to the last 2 on the page.
Haven’t done any in over a year, and the same jokes could still be told. Traitors in the white house, GW is a scary dufus, etc.

Posted by: M31 | Oct 12 2005 1:50 utc | 16

Now that’s His Bushness has lured US with low mortgage re-fi rates to leverage our houses to the N-level and kick property taxes up the ass, at the same time letting the costs of medical care soar by over 30% on his watch, comes this:
– – – – –
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Two of the nation’s most popular tax breaks — for home mortgage interest and employer- paid health insurance — should be narrowed, a federal panel appointed by President Bush suggested Tuesday.
– – – – –
“narrowed” – adj. Progressively reduced to zero.
As a result of the Katrina-event, the Fed deficit was increased nearly $50B for supplemental Fed programs *having nothing to do with Katrina*, it was increased again by $50B for Katrina that we won’t ever see again, nor with the citizens of New Orleans it was meant for, and it increased by *another* $50B to kick the war in Iraq, so that now the *interest* on the Fed deficit is more than all the health and human services programs.
FY 2006 Health and Human Services … $67.2 B
FY 2006 Department of Education … $56.0 B
FY 2006 Housing & Urban Development . $ 28.5B
Poof! So, no more mortgage credits, health care credits, Medicaire, food stamps or vet benefits.
Der Bushness done spent it already!
Ahh,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha, you stupid mf’r’s…

Posted by: Frank Omelek | Oct 12 2005 2:33 utc | 17

@John Francis Lee
Yeah, I really don’t like the definition they used in my link, which is why I used the definition I did (“the tendency of phenomena to resemble their diametric opposites as they become increasingly polarised”). Jung borrowed the word from the teachings of Herakleitos of Ephesos, so it goes back a ways, however nowadays it is used nearly exclusively in psychological circles. I agree that the nation of Israel is a classic example, but once you begin to understand how the process works, you start seeing it at work everywhere.

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 12 2005 2:46 utc | 18

@ M31 nice call

Posted by: annie | Oct 12 2005 3:11 utc | 19

Finally, his projection is being picked up by WaPo. Here’s a much more extensive breakdown, from Mark Crispin Miller link: link
A couple of snippets:
Bush on his domestic and international policy: “…a radical ideology with immeasurable objectives to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world.” Bush knows a lot about intimidating the world. And his single-minded re-alignment of international policy and diplomacy can very easily be defined as radical and ideological — if not downright insane.
Bush on his exploitation of Christianity to suit his party’s political goals: “The time has come for all responsible [Christian] leaders to join in denouncing an ideology that exploits [Christianity] for political ends, and defiles a noble faith.”
Bush discussing more of his own penchant for exploitation — but also, his inability to accept blame, as well as his policy of war over diplomacy: “The radicals exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization, in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution.”

Posted by: jj | Oct 12 2005 5:59 utc | 20

@ Monolycus
Thanks for teaching me a new word. I guess it’s no coincidence that Hegel was well aware of the views of Herakleitos, since enantiodromia seems to be a “special”
(and especially interesting) case of the dialectic,
without the resolutive Enthebung. Better versed Hegelians will undoubtedly expose my shoddy analogy.

Posted by: Hannah K. O’Luthon | Oct 12 2005 6:05 utc | 21

@ Monolycus and others
Not to get all new age-y and metaphysical but, your ‘enantiodromia theory’ reminds me very much of psychodynamic theories of the Jungian perspective of archetypes, collective consci, and shadow phenomena. And if one were to allow oneself to entertain this ideal for a moment this (audio mp3) makes perfect sense if not only for amusement.
“The Jungian analysis by Paul Levy, of Bush and the culture which maintains him, reaches deep into the American psyche. It should be studied and digested by everyone. If the citizenry would recognize that Bush’s egomania is acting out a national illness, we would all be saner. If the US could integrate the “shadow” which Bush projects upon “the axis of evil,” perhaps we could achieve world peace and start to solve global problem.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 12 2005 7:39 utc | 22

Sorry $cam, I think that really distorts the reality in this case. It’s far more helpful to restoring the Republic to focus on the Far More Terrifying Reality, that USA has had 2 successive Coup d’etats.
Secondly, his ratings were in the tank til they pulled 911. Most people are too cowardly even to look at the evidence of that. That held people in fear. And don’t forget their anthrax attacks on journos, for which no one has been arrested, surprise surprise, wonder why that was.
Thirdly, even more frightening no investigation has been held to determine if the Veep ordered the assasination of Sen. Paul Wellstone, although the evidence is compelling. It’s assumed on Capitol Hill that he was assasinated, which just might have a chilling effect.
Fourthly, they would never have accomplished what they did w/out control of the Senate. Too frightening to discuss how that was accomplished – rigged elections in Nebraska & Georgia & assasination of Wellstone.
Fifth, if the JackAss party represented our interests rather than Wall Street, their victory would be too overwhelming to permit rigging or send people into this kind of analysis.
This is so much more germane right now than talk of national illness. It’s the elite that’s mad w/greed & the terrible power computers have given them. We’re only asked to choose the path they’ll lead us down to the gallows, so one seriously errs if one reads too much into how well these assholes reflect the national psyche. No one talks about how most people vote for none of the above. Reagan, for ex. was elected by 22-27% of eligible voters & Bu$hCo prob. didn’t get much more. If you’re speaking of a 60% landslide of eligible voters, then maybe you have a tiny bit of a point. Better to discuss the 75% they do not represent, if you want to understand the national psyche, but that threatens the elite, hence this drivel.

Posted by: jj | Oct 12 2005 8:11 utc | 23

Additional thght. Nothing I said should be construed to mean that I don’t think Jung’s work is magnificent & widely applicable in theory & practice. We just have special circumstances at the moment. Anyway, to draw a better portrait, focus on the 75% they do not represent.

Posted by: jj | Oct 12 2005 8:35 utc | 24

Not to be snarky, but did you even listen to the audio jj? Have you ever done shadow work? I’m not being facetious, I’m really curious. Further, perhaps, it is a combination of both. One can not denay the sleepers nor the methodical.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 12 2005 9:01 utc | 25

As long as I am plumbing the depths of words-that-are-rarely-used-but-are-oh-so-appropriate, it should be noted that the Two-Minute Hate speech from which George the Younger’s hypocrisy becomes so glaringly apparent is merely an attempt to fuel a national sciomachy. If we want to discuss a national psychological pathology instead of the BushCo® psychological pathology, this might be a more fruitful direction. Once we, as a nation, can stop chasing phantom (and in the case of Osama bin Laden, probably dead) terrorists we might start the process of recovery. Remember, admitting you have a problem is the first step.

Posted by: Monolycus | Oct 12 2005 9:10 utc | 26

International national sciomachy ?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 12 2005 9:47 utc | 27

Has W ever admitted or denied meeting Osama? Considering their dads have been pretty tight for decades it is difficult to imagine their paths didn’t cross at some stage.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 12 2005 10:33 utc | 28

@ Uncle $cam | Oct 12, 2005 3:39:04 AM | #
The link didn’t work for me.

Posted by: beq | Oct 12 2005 11:13 utc | 29

@beq
works from here, maybe try cutting and pasting?
http://www.texemarrs.com/images/neocons.gif

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 12 2005 14:23 utc | 30

@ Uncle $cam, it’s the audio link that doesn’t work. It gets hung up at the beginning. Maybe it’s just me.

Posted by: beq | Oct 12 2005 15:18 utc | 31

@beq
Sorry about that, the audio works from here too.
Maybe try going here .

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 12 2005 16:34 utc | 32

Uncle, I’ll try & find time to listen tonight. Yr. first link worked for me, but it’s long. By any chance do you know how long it is -20mins?

Posted by: jj | Oct 12 2005 17:11 utc | 33

@Monolycus – on fear:
Where fear can’t take us

. During all those Cold War years, when Americans lived under the shadow of superpower “mutual assured destruction” or MAD (as the madly accurate acronym of that moment had it), seeing no way out, psychic numbing took its toll. What historians often call the “national security state” has actually been a national insecurity state, based on the sort of numbing fear that was bound to make Americans more conservative, more fearful of change.
The idea of a whole society working together to imagine a better world, and then turning imagination into reality, has been off the American radar screen for some six decades now (except for a brief ray of light in the 1960s). When it seems safer to allow no significant change at all, politics naturally becomes an exercise in circling the wagons and hunkering down for an endless siege. The September 11 attack and the Bush-orchestrated response ensured that the United States would continue to be a hunkered-down national insecurity state (and now a homeland insecurity state) well into the 21st century.
All of us, supporters and critics alike, have absorbed this lesson. When we criticize Bush because he has failed to keep us safe, we score valuable political points. But we pay a price for those points, because we reinforce the basic premises of the national insecurity state – that danger is everywhere and can never be eliminated; that all systemic change is dangerous; and that our best hope lies in a government strong enough and pugnacious enough to prevent significant change and so protect us from fear’s worst effects.
…

Posted by: b | Oct 12 2005 17:18 utc | 34

First mp3 link worked for me. Audio is an hour long.

Posted by: PeeDee | Oct 12 2005 21:07 utc | 35

Thanks PeeDee for info.
Good essay, b. Along those lines, see my latest post/link on Open Thread. It’s THE MUST READ ARTICLE OF THE YR – and very short. By the esteemed chronicler of the Twilight of the Republic, the very precise & understated Lewis Lapham – “We Now Live in a Fascist State” from October Harpers’ Magazine. Underlying his essay is one by Eco in ’95 NY Rev. of Books.

Posted by: jj | Oct 12 2005 21:42 utc | 36

The wealthy and privileged also get first dibs on terror warnings.

The city’s rich and well-connected were tipped off to last week’s subway terror threat days before average New Yorkers, the Daily News has learned.
At least two E-mails revealing the purported plot were sent to a select crowd of business and arts executives early last week by New Yorkers who claimed to have close connections to Homeland Security and other federal officials, authorities said.
The NYPD confirmed that it learned of the E-mails on Oct. 3 – three days before Mayor Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and the FBI went public with the threat.

Posted by: lonesomeG | Oct 14 2005 2:50 utc | 37

Back to Main