i'm the president. i'm the decider.

[intertribal]

President H.W. Bush: "Now Junior, I mean Dubya here, he's the real Born-Again."

W. is a movie I think every American should see. It starts off and you're so amused by the "impersonations" by the actors of Bush and his cabinet that you think it's going to be an SNL skit, but what it becomes is cathartic experience.

First off, let me just confirm that Josh Brolin is one of my new favorite actors. Yes, all I've seen is this and No Country For Old Men, but, damn. He's a talented guy.

Does Bush come off as sympathetic? Yes, in a welcome-to-the-human-race kind of way (Perp: "You don't know what it's like." Goren: "What? To work so hard, and still be a nobody?" Perp: "Yes..." Goren: "Welcome to the human race."). Would Bush, as Stone I believe said, like this depiction of him? No. It's fair, and it's sympathetic, but it's not gentle. I seriously doubt any of his supporters would like this movie. Other people who come off similarly include Colin Powell, the rest of the Bush clan, and Laura Bush. Plenty of people come off as unsympathetic - Condoleeza Rice was a particularly grating sycophant, Rumsfeld and Cheney are brutal strategists who disappear when the "WMDs" in Iraq are similarly nowhere to be found, and Karl Rove is a peculiar Gollum-like creature who skulks in the shadows of the war room with binders filled with statistics who lives so vicariously through W. that at one point he calls George H. W. Bush "Poppy".  But part of W.'s problem is that he is surrounded by people trying to put words in his mouth - Rove and Cheney in particular are the most egregious of the bunch - and he must every now and then remind these underlings that he is the President, he's leading the campaign, it starts and ends with him.  As it turns out this is because he suffers from a chronic fear of not being in control of his own life, not living up to the Bush name, not being Texan enough, not "earning his spurs", as his father puts it.  

What this movie drives home is something I very much agree with: that politicians are just people, just normal people with the same psychoses and neuroses the rest of us have - they've just got the power to act on their insanity. W.'s problem is essentially that he lives in fear of disappointing his father, who prefers his brother Jeb - when W. becomes governor of Texas but Jeb loses the same race in Florida, Bush Sr. mopes about how hard it is for feet-on-the-ground, head-screwed-on-straight Jeb, and W. says, "Why do you always have to be feel bad for Jeb? Why can't you feel good for me?" When Bush Sr. loses the presidential race in 1992 and breaks down crying, saying he thought the war would be enough, W. is flustered and infuriated - he shouts that this would never have happened if his father had charged onto Baghdad like W. told him to. While pacing outside as his mother consoles his father, W. tells Laura that he will never let that happen to him. And indeed: during the campaign for war in Iraq, he asks Ari Fleischer if the latter told the press that "I hate assholes who try to kill my dad".

At a disastrous press conference, Bush struggles to pick his worst mistake.

We have no idea, of course, if these conversations took place, but they may very well have. The thing is, I've realized recently that part of the reason I want to work in government is because I want to be there for the wank. People in government are crazy, snarky, bitter, tired people, and this movie captured that excellently. My favorite scene in the whole movie is probably when W. is leading his cabinet - in their suits and their middle-aged bodies - on this trek through some kind of military training ground that is essentially prairie. They're constantly batting at flies and trying not to groan because W. in his safari suit is so enthusiastic about this, laying out his vision for the war in Iraq and dismissing Colin Powell as a worrywart, cracking jokes that the rest of them are obligated to chuckle at. They seem to have lost the trail, but W. assures them the vehicles are just up ahead, another half a mile, "just follow me!" and they all head off into the wilderness.

A lot of people think that politicians are a different class of people. They're either super-intelligent hyper-Americans, revered as Gods, or soulless, evil robots (or soulless, evil puppets who can't tie their own shoelaces). This girl in my thesis class said the other day, "People in the State Department are all the same. They just re-program the new people that come in." And a lot of people follow this idea that Capitol Hill is all anonymous suits and ties, "yesmen", cronies working for Big Ideas. This is just bullshit, and that goes for both parties. Believe me. People in the State Department are most certainly not "all the same". I can tell stories. This is from my research:

"The fact that the USA tried to discredit Sukarno through attempting to make a pornographic movie about his romantic proclivities indicates the climate of the times."

"While some of Sukarno’s American critics considered his recent outburst egregious but not inconsistent with previous antics, the CIA detected a deeper significance. Agency analysts began to suspect that Sukarno was becoming mentally unhinged… One of Sukarno’s wives, his fourth, seemed to be the source of most of the problems; the CIA’s contacts reported that some of Sukarno’s associates were plotting to kill her."

"The undersecretary of state [Ball] discounted what he considered wishful thinking by Jones; the ambassador, whose retirement was at hand, seemed to be showing the strain of seven years at a difficult post. An extraordinary request by Jones a few days earlier that Johnson personally assure Sukarno that the CIA was not trying to assassinate him did not improve Ball’s estimate of the ambassador’s judgment."

I'm sorry, but this is stuff I find positively hilarious.  And it's all true, and it all had real consequences.  Politics is about a lot of things, but politicians are not sterile 'droids.  They're not all-bad or all-good, like so many people would like to believe.  They don't behave in a way a realist political scientist would describe to be "rational".  But then again, who does.  People are not perfect calculators of gain/loss margins. 

W. and his reverend pray after he announces that he has heard the call:
"God wants me to run for president."
The reverend's doubt-filled reaction: "... truly?" 

Comments

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

mmkay...then i'm gonna ignore it.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I was expressing frustration with all the rest of your comments and how I feel they attack what I've learned, what I think, what I've experienced as inherently flawed in some way.

But feel free to ignore it.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

well, then you should say so instead of making passive-aggressive remarks, but now you have.

the problem is that i don't think all disciplines, thoughts, opinions, or experiences are equal in any way but all belonging to individuals with equal rights to express them. it's an extremely frustrating way to think, even for myself. in other words, the problem is that i don't agree with you. however, i don't believe any of those things are "inherently flawed."

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

if i did think what you think is inherently flawed, i might think, rather, that you yourself are stupid, which i do not, which is why i bother arguing with you. i know i'm ridiculously stubborn, and i take my beliefs really seriously, and i have very little tact or social grace...I'm not sorry for those things, but i am sorry for some of their consequences, which is contradictory, i suppose. sometimes i give up a sense of humility to force a point...this almost never means that i genuinely think i'm better than anyone. sometimes it's a challenge, and sometimes it's defensive, but regardless, i'm wrong a lot, i'm human. but we've been arguing about some pretty fundamental beliefs, things i base how to live my life around. doesn't mean i can't still be wrong, but maybe i'm more stubborn than usual. i don't know. i probably would take back some of the comments i made as unnecessary or wrong in retrospect, but i can't talk in retrospect.

anyway. as for disciplines, i don't think they don't each have something to offer, i don't reject any of the outright. i just think that a good many things would benefit from a interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary perspective. like doing psychology without anthropology, when human beings are social animals, or economics without sociology, as if they weren't intrinsically related, or philosophy without political science, as if our intellectual concerns should be divorced from our political ones, or linguistics from any of them, as if language were a separate entity not bound to the social forces that shape its use. There's a Wittgenstein quote...here:

"What is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you is enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic, etc., and if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life?"

That's what I think academics should do, and it seems too infrequently does that actually happen, for anyone, in or outside it.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

There is a way to disagree with someone without making the other person feel like total shit, which is what you do with me. I hate how you belittle me. I hate how you dismiss my opinions.

I'm not against taking other disciplines into account. But lately I've been feeling bludgeoned every time I say something. Note that you never manage to actually change what I think, if that's what you're trying to accomplish. I just feel beaten up. I feel like almost everything I write about ties into a fundamental belief of yours somehow, and I don't even see how most of the time. Like I'm just writing about something that I don't feel is reflective of some fundamental thing at all, and suddenly we're arguing about something that to me seems completely unrelated. The thing is I don't like arguing. At least not the way you do it. I'm fine with having a discussion. But that's not what we have, we don't have discussions.

Part of the problem is as soon as I feel assaulted I always feel like I have to defend the opposite position, even if it's not something I wholely believe. I feel like I have to rescue whatever you're attacking.

You can't talk in retrospect? No, but that doesn't mean you can't be more careful. That doesn't mean you have to try to gore every other belief in the room! It doesn't mean you can just go, "Oh, well, maybe I was wrong there, whatever" and just keep on keeping on. It's not even about tact or social grace. It's about treating other people with respect.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Well, I really don't mean or try to make you feel like total shit, and I'm very sorry that's the case. Please, if I do that, stop me before I keep going. I'm much worse in written discussion, I think, of judging how a conversation is progressing; much more confident, too...

Well, how do I have a discussion, then? What do you expect from me? Tell me, and I'll tell you if I think I can do it, or try. As it is, I just try to respond to you with what I see in what you write that I care about, that I'm interested in, that I have some response to, and sometimes it becomes an argument. I don't really like arguing either, but I've grown to accept it. I prefer more collaborative discussions, but maybe that's only possible when you agree on the presuppositions to discussion... I mean, how do you express disagreement otherwise? As for changing what you think, that's not necessarily the goal. Maybe agreement is, although I think argument itself can be worthwhile sometimes even when you disagree in the end. I understand the other person's position better, and often my own, too. I'm more likely to respect their position after an argument than before it...y'know?

I don't know why you feel like you have to rescue what I'm attacking, though maybe it's good for me...?

Okay. But it doesn't mean I have to accept what you're saying, either. And being wrong isn't a "whatever," it's a genuine admission on my part.

I feel like you're telling to agree with you or shut up because I'm a disrespectful, aggressive, annoying person. I have faith, though, that you are not.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

The way I usually discuss things is by responding to everything I can. Even if it's just that I agree. I do this especially if there's something I disagree on, and when I got to the part I disagree on, I'm not blunt. This is just window dressing. But often it makes the other person more likely to listen to what I'm saying. Not always, but often. I very rarely genuinely cannot see the other person's perspective, however, so it's easier for me to say things like, "I see what you're saying, but..." I feel like this would just seem like bullshit coming from you, so I'm not sure how to tell you to have a discussion instead of an argument except maybe that driving the discussion in a certain direction by only talking about something you personally take issue with, and not acknowledging any points the other person makes, is sort of going to invite an argument.

I think primarily the whole picking out things you disagree with and only commenting on those is what grates me. My mother does something similar: she only responds to anything with corrections. It feels like I'm just there as a critical exercise for your beliefs, instead of an actual person who gets to be genuinely excited or emotional about something, who gets to be my own person instead of a reflection of what matters to you.

I think the whole agreeing on the presuppositions to discussion is probably a large part of what's missing and what makes this not work.

I feel I have to rescue whatever you're attacking because I'm a contrarian. Because whatever you're attacking isn't there to defend itself.

I'm not saying you have to accept what I'm saying, or agree with me or shut up. I don't know what to do really, except not write about things that are likely to incite arguments.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I very rarely genuinely cannot see the other person's perspective, however, so it's easier for me to say things like, "I see what you're saying, but..."

Me too, actually. I just rarely say so explicitly.

I feel like this would just seem like bullshit coming from you

I agree, because I think it is bullshit. I get to the intellectual points, and leave out the fluff, usually. To me, that's just being polite, and I don't really give a crap about being polite. Maybe I should, I don't know. If you disagree with someone, that's what's interesting, that's what needs discussing--maybe you see what they're saying, but maybe be discussing it you'll both be able to refine your views. It's fantastic.

I'm not sure how to tell you to have a discussion instead of an argument except maybe that driving the discussion in a certain direction by only talking about something you personally take issue with, and not acknowledging any points the other person makes, is sort of going to invite an argument.

Hm. But why tell them that I agree on everything else? That's implied by the fact that I don't mention it. It's not very interesting. I mean, if we just agree, than we might as well end the discussion and go home. I don't see what the point of talking about agreement is. I guess I could question those too.

I think primarily the whole picking out things you disagree with and only commenting on those is what grates me. My mother does something similar: she only responds to anything with corrections. It feels like I'm just there as a critical exercise for your beliefs, instead of an actual person who gets to be genuinely excited or emotional about something, who gets to be my own person instead of a reflection of what matters to you.

Whoah. I can't speak for your mother, but that's totally not what I'm trying to do at all. When I respond with a disagreement, even if I responded with a 'correction', I would most likely see it more as being helpful, like, "Well, I think you're on the right track here, this is all great, I agree, but there's one point I take issue with, and it's this." And if you can prove my point isn't relevant, or isn't important, then it stands as is. It's also beneficial for me to think about, but that's not really my primary concern, to 'critically exercise my beliefs'. That's just how I deal with people I think are intellectual equals. Ideally, it makes us both emotional and excited, the discussion itself, but clearly there's a disconnect there for us right now.

I think the whole agreeing on the presuppositions to discussion is probably a large part of what's missing and what makes this not work.

Maybe...though I'm not sure we mean the same thing by this? Well, what presuppositions would be missing?

I'm not saying you have to accept what I'm saying, or agree with me or shut up. I don't know what to do really, except not write about things that are likely to incite arguments.

I certainly wouldn't want you to do that. I'll try to be more careful/considerate, though I think part of this must rest on misunderstanding...

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

"Well, I think you're on the right track here, this is all great, I agree, but there's one point I take issue with, and it's this."

I don't think this is implied. I don't think you think I'm your intellectual equal, I think that you think I'm your intellectual punching bag. When you don't respond to other things I assume it's because you don't find anything interesting about it.

I mean, a lot of the things that intellectually stimulate me are not opinions. It's like, let's think about a plane crash. That's what gets me excited, and that's the kind of thing that doesn't need an argument - or, I mean, you could have one, but it's more the kind of thing that just invites more evidence, more stories, more weirdness. And I do want to hear bizarre opinions on things like plane crashes, but I want to synthesize it myself. Anyway what I'm trying to say is that I much prefer pooling data to having arguments, especially because I don't think I'm informed enough to have an argument. I like to bring things up but I don't have arguments about things unless I really really know what I'm talking about, and even then, you don't have arguments about things like plane crashes beyond the very technical arguments of what caused the plane to crash.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Well, it's how I feel sometimes, and maybe I should say it more. I dunno.

But it's true that I don't find plane crashes terribly interesting. I asked why you did, and that was interesting, but for me, planes are just one small thing, one small symptom of larger forces. I mean, for you they aren't just planes either, but in a much more metaphorical way? But that will be my opinion on things like plane crashes, because it's how I think. I don't get pooling data, because at a point it stops being helpful to a scientific investigation and just becomes more data. That's the sort of thing I write about on my LJ sometimes--methods of investigation, and logical ways of going about these problems, and why sometimes it doesn't work--because it interests me, because I want to make things better. I don't always think I'm informed enough to have an argument either. That's why I take quotes and scraps--too much, sometimes--because I want to think about them and have people think about them with me so that we can develop ideas further, and learn.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's the metaphor of plane crashes. But I like to work in metaphors rather than in terms of the larger forces - it just makes it easier for me.

I don't understand most or any of the quotes you post, which makes it hard for me to really get much out of it.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Anyway, I don't think anyone is a punching bag. I really think very little about ranking people in terms of intellectual capacity. I don't think I can do so in any way that would convince me, so I don't bother. I treat most people who I think are worth talking to in about the same way, and react to what I get back. Sometimes I don't see what you see in something. I'm not you, and I can't be.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

"I'm not you, and I can't be."

Exactly.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

also, in all honesty, i feel like i end up defending positions i don't wholely believe as well. sometimes i just want to go further with it, to see where that position would go, if it's wrong, why it's wrong. other times, i dunno. i'm slowly getting better at putting this sort of feeling explicitly as a question, instead of the thought that just occurred to me as if i fully believe it. obviously not better enough. i mean, i don't think you should take everything i say seriously in that way...it's a serious question, usually, but not a always a firm belief...or a firm belief misapplied to the situation at hand. which i think a lot of our recent arguing was, on my part, and why i said that some things i said were wrong.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I try to be tolerant and when my patience runs out it comes out as passive-aggressive. I shouldn't have been that way but it's always what happens when I get angry.

Well, I definitely get that you don't think my discipline is as good as yours. If you don't agree with me on anything, and you're so stubborn about your own beliefs, I wonder what is really the point. There is literally nothing that you have agreed with me on lately. It actually seems like sometimes you want to find things to disagree with me on. And I don't see how you could possibly respect me if you disagree with me on everything, and I don't want to be friends with someone who does not respect me.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I don't think your discipline is worse than mine. that doesn't mean i think it's good. i think they're probably both shitty in a lot of ways, but that doesn't mean they have nothing to offer, either. if i believed in disciplines, i'd believe in making a career out of academia, and i think that's contrary to the goals of enlightenment.

so what if we haven't agreed on things lately? good, at least we're talking about them. i hate that no one nowadays seems to want to even discuss hard issues, to risk changing their mind! or maybe it's people of all times, i don't know. not the point.

Of course i still respect you. i admit, when i argue about these things, it gets tough, and personal. jason's made me cry with things he's said about the worthlessness of anthropology. so what? i think it's important, when thinking about what you're going to do with the rest of your life, to consider what it is about it that you love, why you want to do it, what it, and you, could possibly have to contribute to society. and in a lot of ways, what you want to do is much more obviously beneficial. maybe that's why i've thought about what i'm doing so much, and hold such strong beliefs--I don't know.

And you know, I could just as easily say, "If you don't agree with me on anything, and you're so stubborn about your own beliefs, I wonder what is really the point," to you, but I don't, because I still care about you and respect what you have to say.

I find things to disagree on because I think it's interesting, because I think it's what's worth discussing. I'm sorry it offends you. That really wasn't my intention.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

I feel like if you want to have knock-down drag-out fights, it needs to be with someone who's equally as committed to kniving other people as you are, like Jason. I'm just not. I don't think it's worth it.

One of the conclusions I've come to in the last couple years, while I was working out the conclusion to Ilium, is that big ideas aren't worth blood. I know to you that must sound awful, and I feel like I can't put it into words articulately - all I can say is read "The Quiet American", which has the same conclusion. My mom basically gave up on living for big ideas and she's lived a relatively calm, healthy life. My dad was obsessed with big ideas and committed his whole self to them, and died from the stress and frustration. And yes, "The Quiet American" is about the Vietnam War and the blood there is real. But I think it's why I don't like getting nasty over ideas. As the asofterworld on my profile page says, "Truth and Beauty are wonderful words, but schrapnel is schrapnel, and at the end of the day I am alone with the things I have done." I don't like attacking other people's beliefs, even when I'm mad at them. And what's ironic is that this is actually good for being in the Foreign Service.

And yes, I do have opinions about things. I love my thesis. And I dislike it when poli sci majors don't have any actual opinions on realism and constructivism, but they're just doing poli sci to get into law school. But even though I hate realism I won't attack someone for believing in it. I mean, I respect Juliya even though she's a hardcore realist and thinks constructivism is just magical thinking, because she's smart, she's a good student and at least she has an opinion.

That doesn't mean I don't consider what it is about what I'm going to do with my life that I love - not that I really know what I'm going to do with my life besides the career that I want to go into, and I know exactly what it is about the Foreign Service that I love.

I feel like I'm not that stubborn about my beliefs, and it's not that I disagree with you - I feel like you do the disagreeing, and I get defensive and confused because I don't even know what happened.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

Um...I'm basically a pacifist. But I believe in the value of discussion and argument, conflicting beliefs, exchange of ideas. I don't think they're contradictory. Arguing doesn't make me want to hurt anyone. I think if I saw that I did that in actual, real-time, physically-present argument, I would immediately stop. But...it goes for both sides, sometimes. I feel like some people (not you) get upset just by the fact that someone else thinks they're wrong, can't have someone stand up for an opposing viewpoint or else they just cower and sulk. And I think that's mostly their fault, even though they're only hurting themselves.

Jason's not committed to kniving people, and I kind of resent the term being applied to me as well. Tara, however, might well be...I still haven't figured out how to argue with her. She treats it like a competition, will say whatever it takes to win, and fast. I can't keep up with her--only in writing. Jason...well, he demands that people are stubborn about their beliefs. Anyway, we are capable of having less animated discussion, though. I don't think we've argued like that in awhile. A few brief tiffs, but nothing major.

I don't like just straight up attacking people's beliefs, but I do like questioning them. Like with pro-life second Steve, about abortion. I feel like I learned something about my own beliefs from that discussion, even if i didn't convince him of anything. Maybe I (mistakenly) think that with my friends, mutual like and respect is more assumed.

Of course you have opinions about things, and I'm glad you do. Exactly, what's most important to me is that people actually care about these issues. It's what I like best in profs, in fellow students, and in my friends. Like Jon and Steve totally disagree about anthro, but they both think that it's really important and worth teaching, and I appreciate that. I think it makes them better teachers.

Didn't you just say that you were more stubborn about your beliefs than most of your friends?

I'm sorry. It's true, I think, that we don't disagree on that many things...

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

That's because most of my friends have no beliefs, usually because they're too busy worrying about who they are in much more psychological/personal terms than any greater overarching theme.

The knife is not real, it's a metaphor. I mean, arguing like this doesn't invigorate me. It doesn't make me think. If anything it makes me think less, because it makes me stressed, and it disables me from doing my work or my writing. It makes me feel sort of ill/nauseated. And I think it's at least in part because you determine the things we "discuss", and they're not the things I would discuss and thereby have strong opinions on, they're sort of incidental things that I don't have any strong opinion on. And to me it all just becomes such bullshit, very fast.

Like just now. I'm trying to make a real point about why I have a hard time dealing with foundations of life and such - and further that I'm trying to tell you about myself and how I came to be who I am now, which I think is a very important sort of realization - and you completely skip over it. I know that's natural, but I feel like it's been happening a lot lately, and most of the things I'm thinking about lately relate to this, relate to my past and how that relates to my future, and they're not necessarily theoretical building blocks or anything, but they are important to me. They're not even opinions, they're just observations/realizations about myself. But it's like if it doesn't have to do with what you care about, with these big ideas that I am so afraid of, it just gets passed over and is never spoken about. And to me that is like skipping over my life. It is like skipping over what makes my life important and worth living, and what makes it worse for me is that I'm skipping over this in order to have an argument about something I don't even have an opinion on or care about. And I feel like this is what I'm always doing these days, bypassing my own interests for someone else's.

And this is really, really upsetting to me.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I mean, arguing like this doesn't invigorate me. It doesn't make me think. If anything it makes me think less

Hm, well that's certainly not good. I'm sorry to be part of that.

it makes me stressed, and it disables me from doing my work or my writing. It makes me feel sort of ill/nauseated.

I know what you mean, but don't you see that it makes me feel that way too when you disagree with what I'm putting forward as important beliefs? I think that's what being challenged in my beliefs just feels like, for me. I think beliefs are comforting, and if you can have a totally bland, comforting, discussion, you aren't really dealing with something in a way that can change what people think. Not that you will otherwise, but it's the potential, the stress involved, the doubt.

And I think it's at least in part because you determine the things we "discuss", and they're not the things I would discuss and thereby have strong opinions on, they're sort of incidental things that I don't have any strong opinion on. And to me it all just becomes such bullshit, very fast.

Well, aside from what's important to me just being called "incidental things", what would you discuss? I mean, I know you have strong opinions on other things, but very often they are things where all I can say is, "I agree", or "That seems right," or "I'm glad you had that experience," or whatever. I really don't know what else to say. By all means, though, change the topic if you're bored with what I ramble about. Ask me questions, or demand response to something. I'll do my best.

Like just now. I'm trying to make a real point about why I have a hard time dealing with foundations of life and such - and further that I'm trying to tell you about myself and how I came to be who I am now, which I think is a very important sort of realization - and you completely skip over it.

I really didn't skip over it. I read every word, and responded, in my way. Perhaps I responded less than I could have because I didn't want to emphasize disagreement here, in this discussion. I don't think big ideas are worth blood, but I do think they're worth honesty. Why not live for them? Why want a calm, healthy life? I would choke on a calm, healthy life. I would get tired, and sleep all the time, and never be motivated. It would end up the opposite of healthy. And so I don't know what to do with your experience. I don't see why ideas should make shrapnel. I don't think we have to get "nasty over ideas", but I do think people should be able to deal with them, and maturely, and that that's a lot less likely to create real shrapnel than ignoring them and letting things lie calm. But I don't think, as I said, that that means I need to "attack" others' beliefs. But question, always question. I'm sure it's good for the Foreign Service, that makes a lot of sense, it's the essence of being diplomatic. If I were trying to be diplomatic, certainly, I would take other approaches, but I take a lot of things as part of a struggle to find the truth. As for "The Quiet American", I've seen the movie but not read the book. My dad took me because he likes Michael Caine. But I've forgotten most of it, except being disturbed by some aspect of sex/romance in the movie. So, perhaps I should read it.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

My father chose his big ideas over me and my mother. And the thing is, my dad was always fucked over by big ideas. It's what got him taking part in genocide, and then he went in the complete opposite direction and became Marxist to make up for it, and then when things got bad he ultimately chose to detach from us because he could not stop worrying about the direction of the country.

And this is not to say that I don't like ideas. I do. But in healthy doses, and with a more tolerant attitude. I see parts of my father in myself and it frightens me, especially when I see one of his good friends, who always had political discussions with my dad but was able to take things in stride and able to have a life outside of ideas - and he's still doing fine now, and my dad is in the fucking ground. You know? That's my experience.

And the other thing is, the way I work through ideas is by writing fiction. A lot of what I write is extremely idea-centric. For me that's a more holistic way of expressing myself than I could ever put down in a written discussion like this.

Part of my career goal is to be diplomatic. I don't look for truth and I actually don't even try to figure out how to make the best democratic society. My goal is to just keep things together, mend the stitches. Other people are free to search for truth and debate about democracy. But my life if I join the Foreign Service won't be happy and calm in the sense where I could sleep all the time, it would be filled with action, as cliched as that sounds. And I would be discussing things that matter to the post, but it would be on a much less meta scale than discussions we've been having. And I would be writing. And honestly, I would be plenty happy with that.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I know that's natural, but I feel like it's been happening a lot lately, and most of the things I'm thinking about lately relate to this, relate to my past and how that relates to my future, and they're not necessarily theoretical building blocks or anything, but they are important to me.

Maybe I'm missing the point, or maybe I don't know how to respond...I don't know what to say.

They're not even opinions, they're just observations/realizations about myself.

But they seem to contain opinions, and a much more stable, unchanging view of your identity... But if I take them as non-opinions, I don't know what I can say. Congratulations?

But it's like if it doesn't have to do with what you care about, with these big ideas that I am so afraid of, it just gets passed over and is never spoken about. And to me that is like skipping over my life. It is like skipping over what makes my life important and worth living

How? Why? Maybe I just don't get your life, or what you think is important, but, well, I'm confused as to how this seems to you to be what I'm doing. Confused as fuck.

and what makes it worse for me is that I'm skipping over this in order to have an argument about something I don't even have an opinion on or care about.

You don't care about what would best make a democratic society? Because that's what I was trying to talk about. Obviously badly.

And I feel like this is what I'm always doing these days, bypassing my own interests for someone else's.

I'm sorry. I don't expect you to do that for me. But what are your interests?

And this is really, really upsetting to me.

Again, I'm sorry.

[intertribal.livejournal.com]

We do care about similar things if you frame it that way. I would never, ever, ever describe any of our conversations as "what would best make a democratic society" because what you talk about sounds much more overarching than that. When I think of what would best make a democratic society I don't think of what you think of. I think of pluralism and freedom of press and fair elections and civil society and rule of law. And I know, believe me, that a lot more ties in - but if I try to think about what you think about, it would break my head, because I already think in too much detail about things like civil society and because my brain is always half-taken up by stories I'm trying to write and characters in my head.

I think that I tend to think horizontally instead of vertically. So say I'm talking about, I don't know, masculinity in the military. What I like to do is make that discussion richer rather than immediately jumping up a level to the frames our society uses and ceasing to talk about concrete things. And I think that is because I write, so I think in terms of details and images and emotion and texture - instead of, say, truth, or philosophy, which I would call more vertical.

And when I'm forced to think vertically I can't even form a cogent argument, because it's too vague for me. That's why it becomes bullshit. But this ties back into the pursuit of truth and relativism. And then I start feeling like my own interests are getting pushed aside. A better way of putting it is that the argument is never defined the way I would define it. It's always on a different, bigger scale, where I can't make sense of things, because it seems like the factors are mind-bogglingly infinite. And that's fine if you think that way. But you can't expect me to. We're not the same person.

I mean, all I wanted to say in this post is that I find the quirks of politicians interesting, and I find their neurosis interesting. I've always liked the idea of a link between insanity and politics. I have nothing really to back me up on that but I like thinking about it. And I don't want to just immediately step into frames and society and how it's all part of a big system. And I'm a constructivist, you know, I like systems, but part of the reason I'm a constructivist is actually because it's the only perspective that allows for things like irrationality. And I wanted to dwell on that level. I'm sure that if I wrote about insanity and politics you would be able to dismiss it as something very insignificant in the large scheme of things (or that it has nothing to do with insanity because it's all been carefully sculpted by the system, or something else that completely dismisses it as unimportant to talk about) and maybe it is insignificant in the history of humankind. But see, in my lifetime, in my career, I'm likely to encounter insane people in politics. And it doesn't matter a whole lot to future-me how society in the long-run shaped them to be that way, and why no one likes to be objectified, and how we're all part of a group that's been stereotyped - I just need to be able to deal with them in the immediate timeframe, and quite frankly, to be amused about it. And I'm sure that sounds like a very small life to you but I'm okay with it. Honest.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

I just want to say...I think things have gotten mangled, and a lot of that is my fault, but I think some of what I wanted to do was to respond to your life, because i do care, and i feel like i don't understand where you are right now, and it troubles me.

[royinpink.livejournal.com]

maybe it just comes out stupid, because i try to come up with LJ comments instead of just talking to you, or because i'm too "logical and unemotional" lately (jason just accused me of this, hah), or i don't know what. and i feel like everything i've really felt in response to what you say has come out all wrong in what i've written to you. sigh.