Damn, you're a fine writer Phallus Dei. While I'm afraid I can't be won over anymore than you, I recognize and honor the moral imperative of your argument. No doubt my judgement is indeed clouded by personal biases, and this is true not only of my political views (don't get me started on Billie Eilish). As an old New Yorker my low-as-the-ocean-floor opinion of Trump (hate's too strong a word in my book) goes back to the 80s and has long ago transcended any kind of purely irrational dislike of the man personally and taken on something of a much more philosophical nature. (To paraphrase Mikey Wild, "I was a Never-Trumper before you were a Never-Trumper, Never-Trumper!")
As we both pointed out, it's hard to really advance an argument if we dispute the legitimacy of each other's sources; of what the facts actually are. It turns the discussion into something like an interminable religious debate where neither party accepts the authority of the other's text. This is truly a problem these days and has lead us into a kind of ghetto-ization of ideas: not a good thing in a democracy. Trump has exasperated this exponentially and deliberately, and for purely cynical, self-serving reasons. Ironically, I feel that wiki-leaks, for reasons I mentioned (and which I realize you roundly refute) is in fact largely responsible for the current sorry state of things, enabling an anti-democratic would-be dictator pursuing a reactionary, far right agenda, apparently for it's own self-serving reasons: Assange's vendetta against Clinton. I also wonder about the legitimacy of an organization that solely attacks the injustices of Western governments (and I acknowledge the facts in your litany of American crimes), but largely ignores the misconduct of their authoritarian adversaries. As someone who has lived and worked in that part of the world, I have something of a keen understanding of the reality of state violence and repression there. Receiving the material and/or moral support of such regimes is disqualifying in my opinion. Wikileaks, knowingly or not (and I say knowingly, as I accept the Mueller report), was weaponized by a repressive regime on behalf of its interests in interfering in a foreign election. While I recognize the sad fact that, say, American or British special interest groups can legally disinform the public to influence the outcome of an election in their own countries, I can't accept the right of a foreign power to do so.
I respect the fact that you disagree with these allegations, and I'll be happy to give you the last word in refuting them. Lord knows, my case is full of holes (I only play a political scientist on TV - and occasionally on HH). Let me just end by saying that while we agree to disagree about Assange and other matters, I was moved and inspired by your core ideas and by how passionately you voiced them. I promise to open my mind and pay closer attention to the deeper issues & principles involved in this case and which are at the heart of your argument: principles on which I am in profound agreement. For that, I thank you.
|
