Another change story—sort of, anyway
This article is an excellent demonstration of how hard—how really really hard—it is to change one’s political mind.
It’s written by Mitch Ginsburg, a man who appears to be some sort of military expert—at least, expert enough to work for The Times of Israel as military correspondent. He was a huge Obama supporter in 2008, with high hopes, so much so that he wrote letters to wavering relatives talking up how wonderful an Obama presidency would be:
I spoke about the horrors of the American prison system and the plague of racism that continue to rot America from the inside; I spoke about drugs and how only people of color are incarcerated for using and dealing them, while people like George W. Bush and every other person I knew in college was free to pull bong hits, take acid, and boil ”˜shrooms to his or her heart’s content. I think I spoke about African-American role models and education and gay rights.
Ginsburg did not think much of Sarah Palin. He felt that McCain was too old and too sick, and:
Something could happen to McCain. In walks the moose hunter.
And then there was Israel:
As for Israel, I said with all the authority I could muster, it didn’t really matter. No president has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The United States believes in a two-state solution. The occupation of the West Bank and its subsequent settlement with civilians made sense historically, emotionally, but was a horrid piece of irony…
The article goes on to talk mainly about Obama’s foreign policy, most particularly his policy in the Middle East. Ginsburg describes how each step of the way, Obama’s actions as president slowly, very slowly chipped away at Ginsburg’s hopefulness and then even his equanimity about Obama. Despite certain warning signs that were pretty much ignored, it was really only Obama’s reaction to Egypt in 2012 (prior to the US election) that caused Ginsburg to experience the “first crack in my devotion,” when Obama seemed to be naively trusting the Muslim Brotherhood.
But Ginsburg was reluctant to see what was already so plain:
Still, though, I told myself, the president of the United States of America could not possibly believe that political Islam, as practiced by the Brotherhood, was a necessary stage on the path to true democracy.
That’s where the article got especially interesting to me, because Ginsburg is describing something that happens to a lot of people when their previous beliefs are challenged, which is that they cling to those beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary rather than face the dual pain of realizing they had been wrong and comprehending that they’ve been betrayed by someone they had trusted. The first is a blow to the ego, the second a blow to the sense of safety. The first engenders guilt and/or shame, the second anger, doubt, and fear.
Not very pleasant, to be sure. Much easier to shake it all off and say no, it can’t be that way. And that’s exactly what Ginsburg did, because he voted for Obama again in 2012.
This is how he describes that vote:
In November, with no fanfare and…with dwindling conviction, I voted for him again. I believed Obama when he told Goldberg that, insofar as the military option against Iran in concerned, “as president of the United States, I don’t bluff.”
That lackluster, hope-against-hope vote can only be understood in terms of “hope dies hard.” Ginsburg doesn’t explain it any further. Did he even look at Romney (a non-moose hunter), who was saying all the right things about foreign policy? Did Ginsburg even give Romney a moment of serious thought, or did he dismiss the evil Republican out of hand? It is impossible to know, but that’s my guess—“binders of women” and all that.
The rest of Ginsburg’s article is a long list of the bad things that Obama has done in the Middle East since then, “a flurry of events [that] turned my waning and rather lonely support of the president into a clammy and bewildering sense of betrayal.” Aha! “Clammy” usually means sweaty palms, clammy with fear. “Bewildering”—he’s confused, puzzled, and having trouble processing what’s happening. But the all-important word is “betrayal.” Ginsburg feels lied to, and indeed he was.
But it took Obama doing something especially egregious—actually, a series of egregious lies and false promises that constitute betrayals—to get Ginsburg to say the word and to feel in his gut what it actually means. And even now, Ginsburg backtracks a little and says that maybe, just maybe Obama’s “soft power” approach will end up “prevail[ing] before the regime pushes toward the bomb.” Having just listed a host of things that are wrong with that approach, he doesn’t really try to explain why or how that better result might occur. But he clings to that remnant of hope.
Ginsburg ends the piece with a statement that in 2016 he won’t be writing any more letters “imploring” people to vote (he doesn’t say for whom, but I assume he means for the Democrat and not the Republican). But he stops short of saying he’s considering voting for a Republican himself. If I had to lay money on it, I’d say he won’t; at this point he still can’t. Eight years of Obama and he’s barely halfway there.
That’s how difficult a mind is to change.
In his heart, he has betrayed humanity a million times. He will never be forgiven and the blood on his hands will never wash away, no matter how many Palins he smashes, no matter how many Jewish cities he funds the destruction of.
Ymarsakar:
Well, most of the commenters to the article certainly won’t forgive him.
It’s interesting to me that I’m pretty sure he still would bash Palin (who is especially strong on Israel), how he still is probably snarky about supposed frat-boy Bush, and how he still finds a moment to bash Rand Paul in that last paragraph.
The difficulty is one of strength of will. Those that are exceptional, like the 3% in the American Revolution or the 3% of fighters on the front lines, they can take the pain in the beginning and start transforming themselves before anyone else.
The rest… the rest will hop on the bandwagon when they lose the war, finding it convenient to cover their own backsides with talk about being wrong. Like the Nazi Concentration and other Nazi enforcers, after the war has been lost. Why did they not convert or refuse their orders during the war, as many patriotic Germans did and got killed or exiled for it? Why would they refuse their orders, the war wasn’t even won or lost yet. Only when it was lost and they were being hunted or hurt, would they begin to “doubt” and “question” themselves.
These are Benedict Arnolds, Judas goats. They are useful tools for leading the flock to their deaths, as intended. Without a protector, without a leader or shepherd, the human masses of crabs and buckets full of useless, weakling, followers of the herd, are lost.
They were too weak to convert early on, to be exceptional or brave. They are pretty much useless except as cannonfodder or false flag material, in the conflicts to come. What effort can they usher to gain atonement? They have nothing of use to their spines or brains. They have earned nothing as of yet, except vengeance for their own actions.
My comment at the article which I read and remarked on before coming over here to see it had attracted attention and analysis.
“Mitch Ginsburg is The Times of Israel’s military correspondent.”
“Military” correspondent? “MILITARY” correspondent!? How can a person so lacking in historic insights; a person so retarded and deluded politically be given such an area to cover. No credibility at all for this tool.
A military correspondent who isn’t a cold eyed realist and a shrewd judge of character is worthless. I’m sure Ginsburg is a nice man and all, but he is no help to his friends in a fight.
The race thing seems to be his anchor. He has convinced himself that everyone who did or does not like Obama is a racist. As a military correspondent, he probably gets all his info about social problems from the NYT. He probably doesn’t know that some of our drug policies are a response to blacks wanting the government to do something about crack babies. He has probably never visited an inner city school and seen the discipline problems. Not has he ever talked to someone like Trayvon’s girlfriend. He prefers to feel good about himself by blaming whites for all the problems in black neighborhoods. That mindset will be very hard to change.
Wondering how somebody could be so wrong. That’s not the same as having difficulty changing. He was wrong in the first place.
Note his snark about his son in law who washes organic food–cholera is natural–and might vote republican.
It was the reference to “moose hunter” that caught my attention.
For this clown, it’s all about Not Our Kind, Dear. Everything else is rationalizing and self-regard.
Savant idiot….
Silicon valley has thousands of them.
Edward Snowden is another classic savant idiot.
As one can read, he’s over smitten with ‘team self-worship’ — and in another era and another nation he would’ve made a rousing Bolshevik or Nazi or Maoist, or… — as being in the vanguard of politically correct thinking is his all.
You’ll note that he wastes a fair amount of ink on damning notable out-group politicians. (Palin, Paul)
Excess ‘team identity’ is the universal curse of humanity. It’s a lethal trait when the team is led by a pied piper — an apt description of ayatollah Soetoro.
They cling to those beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary because they lack the requisite character to squarely face the truth. Character is predicated upon integrity and integrity is founded upon consistency in logic and reason.
My father has always put it in the simplest of terms; “son, it takes a ‘big’ man to admit they’re wrong”.
dialog from the movie, “The Wild Bunch”
Pike Bishop: “A hell of a lot of people, Dutch, just can’t stand to be wrong.”
Dutch Engstrom: “Pride.”
Pike Bishop: “And they can’t forget it… that pride… being wrong. Or learn by it”
Character is even harder to change than a mind.
Character determines the battle between ego and objectivity.
Does Ginsburg want a round of applause for finally recognizing what should have been painfully obvious to any sentient being in 2008? He reluctantly acknowledges the failure of a person but fails to distance himself from the political ideology that created that person.
That moose hunter was right about Obama in 2008 and has been right about virtually every foreign policy issue including Israel since. Perhaps he could learn something from her.
In Yiddish, Ginsburg is a schmuck.
Military correspondent my *ss.
Just another blowhard.
So many of these people deserve, have earned, the bad stuff that’s coming.
It is difficult to respect Ginsburg. Anyone who is not skeptical of ideology is a fool.
Well, Ginsburg seems to have rightfully been dissected and eviscerated sufficiently, so I won’t beat a dead horse, so to speak.
I do bridle at these (deleted) who persist in yapping about the racist rot in America. Are they really so obtuse; or are they simply that dishonest? I cannot imagine a society that has bent over so far to overcome the past, and afford opportunity for the future. I know that most of the efforts were misguided, and had huge unintended consequences (like so many government led efforts); but, I believe that they were probably dreamed up and initiated by folks with much the same ideology as Ginsburg’s.
I’m glad you did a post on this article. I’d read it earlier with interest and some hope, but I recognize what’s driving his thoughts. I see it all the time here in very liberal Connecticut. Lifelong Democrats start out with near worshipful adoration for progressive Democrat candidates, and after several years become very disillusioned. They talk with frustration, but that frustration always leads them to another Democrat they can worship, and almost never to a Republican nor a third party candidate.
They are too wedded to the idea that if they just get the right person in office government will be wonderful, and that right person has to be a progressive. Progressivism is usually too much a part of their identity for them to change political views.
Pingback:Dinocrat » Blog Archive » What’s insane?
I saw this story and posted a discussion on Chicagoboyz about it.
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/48130.html
As far as Ginsburg is concerned, he didn’t make a mistake; it was Barack Obama who inexplicably, unpredictably betrayed him. Things will go better with Hillary — unless she inexplicably, unpredictably betrays him, too. Meanwhile, Americans as individuals continue to wallow in racism and moral rot.
The problem with a nation like Iran is that its leaders make verbal and actual — through proxies — threats against Israel and neighboring Arab nations. So they are denied normal status and the tolerance to develop nuclear weapons.
Obama wants to change the post-WWII order, but there is clearly resistance to his much desired legacy. Perhaps because he has not clearly explained the alternative and the collateral damage he is willing to tolerate in order to realize his Dream. Perhaps because he has demonstrated both.
As for a Democrat orientation, its only redeeming and conversely damning value is recognition and rejection of intrinsic value respectively. Still, you have to give them credit for successfully ignoring an irreconcilable paradox. The cognitive dissonance engendered by a dysfunctional religion destroys lesser men and women.
Don Carlos:
Ginsburg’s not really a schmuck (“one who is stupid or foolish; or an obnoxious, contemptible or detestable person”). He’s more of a luftmensch:
Or maybe he’s a schnook:
Or maybe some combination of the two?
I’m pretty sure that Yiddish has more words for “fool” than any other language, each of them slightly different from the others. You can find a fairly lengthy list here.
Ginsburg comes across as just an average American hating lefty who suddenly realized that when America is destroyed his own ethnic group, Israelis, will go down with the rest of us. So now he doesn’t know what to do. He still despises average Americans but realizes his survival is dependent on the survival of the people he loathes.
I don’t think this is about changing a mind. There is nothing rational, nothing based on facts about leftism. It is all emotional and pseudo-religious.
What is wrong about moose hunting? If not for hunters, we would soon be hip deep in mooses, and when mooses come, can flying squirrels be far behind? By the way, Rocket J Squirrel died on Good Friday ( June Foray, she was only 98 )
I noticed that he thinks his son in law drives a red Chevy ” Grand Am “. I suppose when he gets a pickup, it will be an S-10 Ranger, or a Dodge Silverado.
Neo:
Are you sure? What is there in the definition of “Schmuck” that does not apply to Ginsburg? Stupid, foolish, obnoxious and contemptible would all seem to apply. “Luftmensch” is too kind, too gentle, and “Schnook” is too limited to mere foolishness.
But we gotta love Yiddish!
Politics is a zero-sum game in the short term. It is good enough if Democrats don’t turn out to vote. We don’t need them to vote Republican.
In the longer-run, we return to the idea that the problem is the voters, and not Obama or any other individual leader.
In that case, we do need conversion. That will probably only happen if some major disaster can be laid at the feet of Democrats.
It is the ideology that must be discredited.
“I’m pretty sure that Yiddish has more words for “fool” than any other language, each of them slightly different from the others.”
This must be like Eskimos having 27 words (or whatever) for snow: they need so many words because they’re surrounded by the phenomenon at all times.
Matt_SE:
About the Eskimo words for snow.
Ginsburg reminds me of the old communists who are sure communism would be a great success if only the right people were in charge. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot just weren’t the right people. Obama was supposed to be the person to make all the liberal ideas work. He was the one they had been waiting for. He would slow the rise of the oceans and heal the earth. Ginsburg has now decided that Obama isn’t the one but he still believes in the leftist ideas.
Navyvet:
“They talk with frustration, but that frustration always leads them to another Democrat they can worship, and almost never to a Republican nor a third party candidate.”
Yes, and now they are saying that “the right candidate” is a woman!
So many of the “progressives” (Ha, I have to laugh at how they keep changing their label) I know are now saying that men have always screwed things up and it is time for a woman to take charge.
I try pointing out that the UK did that many years ago – and yep, the right candidate was a woman – Thatcher!
But, their response is often Thatcher was evil! It doesn’t dawn on them that Thatcher help to save Britain and that Hillary is no Thatcher – not even close.
But, they still are clueless.
Neo, not having interviewed the subject personally, it’s difficult to say whether he is obnoxious or not. Sending letters to his family, sounds like an orthodox or traditional method. Better than the anti American Obamacans that worshipped their Authority Hussein to the point of obeying his order to bring up healthcare on Thanksgiving to the entire family, to lecture them and video tape them into the Grand Circle of Obedience.
So another foreign term might indeed be better at this stage.
Leftist: America needs a woman to fix the problems Bush and men caused!
Non Leftist: Why didn’t you vote for Sarah Palin then, especially since McCain was about to die off the mortal coil supposedly like Dick Cheney?
Leftist: Palin isn’t a *real* woman *smirk*.
I assume this blog is primarily read by those who not only did not vote for Obama, but were appalled that the American people did, so maybe the comments can be dismissed as candor “within the family.” That said, I’m struck by the scorn and condescension heaped on Ginsburg. Given that he’s finally achieved a measure of enlightenment, isn’t our task to find a way to confirm his belated insights, to prevent his substitution of one false hope (say, Hillary) for another? Isn’t that what we need to accomplish, and is sarcasm and scorn a likely way to do that?
Bob Cosgrove:
I have neither scorn nor condescension for Ginsburg. In fact, I sympathize with him, and I think I understand him, if not perfectly then to a large degree. My entire post was an analysis of why it is difficult to change one’s mind in such a basic way.
I submit Ginsburg has not changed his mind in what matters, which is his world view and his sense of what’s important.
He will vote that way–whether it’s Obama or anybody else–as the opportunity arises.
In this case, if you read him carefully, it’s that Obama failed. Ginsburg, if he takes any blame at all, allowed himself to be fooled by Obama.
Obama failed at doing what Ginsburg wants done, but he will vote for any dem over a republican any time. Because he’s the Right Sort of People and they can no more do other than they can avoid smirking when the name Palin is heard.
Nixon and Haig had a great deal to do with saving israel in 1973. Outside of senior IDF officers, I’d be hard put to think of any Jew who remembers it, or thinks well of those two. Facts don’t matter. Tribalism does, ideology does, being the Right Sort matters.
Apropos Mitch Ginsburg, the following Hebrew saying seems apropos:
“Freierim lo metim, hem rak mitkhalefim”
(Suckers don’t die, they just get replaced.)
Given that he’s finally achieved a measure of enlightenment
That enlightenment must be the new fangled national healthcare check they give out. Fancy, ain’t it.
Also Jane Fonda “apologized”. Where were the people talking about going easy on that, now?
I sent you several change stories
and……………
🙂
the women in the office are twittering about how they will vote for hillary… and trying to pretend because its not because they share pudenda… completely ignorant or dont care about the bad that she has done, and the illegalities that she was caught in…
these same women lament how their sons are doing so poorly and just cant understand why…
so you can pretty much write off any hope of anything else… they are the largest protected class… combine them with race, and other special interests and there is not going to be enough to oppose it..
maybe the reason women were kept out of politics is that they are too easily bought, tricked, and think totalitarian living is great!!!!!!!!!!
which is why the left sides with them…
their desire to have things right, means that they vote more totalitarianism… THE EXCEPTIONS PROVE THE RULE