The rationale behind so much of what is going on is so patently awful, one wonders if those who put it forward actually believe it. Glenn Greenwald highlights one example today. Michael Goldfarb, writing in The Weekly Standard says:
I]f federal agents show up at a corporate headquarters for a major American company and urgently seek that company's officers for assistance in the war on terror, the companies damn well ought to give it as a matter of simple patriotism, whether the CIA wants a plane for some extraordinary rendition or help in tracking terrorists via email. . . . [T]o expect a company to resist a plea from the government for help in a time of war is ridiculous.
--snip--
The companies affected by the new draft Senate bill acted in the interests of their country when they decided to comply with the government's requests. If the requests were inappropriate, that's another matter.
--snip--
To subject them to the whimsy of our judicial system would be outrageous.
As an act of "good faith," the government has no choice but to deny a bunch of litigious lefties the chance to sue over a decision that any reasonable American would have made.
--snip--
As our Congress works heroically to make permanent the vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers it vested in the President two months ago and to protect the corporations which allowed warrantless surveillance in violation of the Leftist doctrine called "law," it is clearly understood in the Beltway that only the fringe Leftists -- the shrill partisan "activists" -- actually subscribe to this radical new agenda of "warrants," as well as the accompanying extremist doctrines such as the "rule of law."
Anyone who believes this is a serious argument offered in good faith is either foolish or stupid.
I understand the that. I understand what is being done. I do not understand the why. Unless, that is, there is no end here other than the maintenance of power, in which case my occasional declarations of "nihilism" apply. If that is so, there is no reason for arguing anymore. Argument, persuasion, the balance of various groups against one another in a pluralist society - none of it has any meaning anymore. We are dealing with something far more sinister, far more dangerous than mere ideological fervor here.
I suppose that, for all my braying about nihilism in the past, I still do not wish to believe it. So. I am seeking understanding here. I am seeking to comprehend what seems outrageous here. Why is an argument so patently ludicrous as the one above offered as serious commentary? Why is it considered as such by people who should know better?
