[eDebate] join Debate against War
Sun Jun 25 19:22:00 CDT 2006
i believe that stannard has done an excellent job getting the ball rolling.
one tactical suggestion is that Debate against War not only specify the
anti-war nature of debate and dialogue but also the constitutional
connection to debate and that the Constitution itself was forged out of
vigorous public debating by early Americans. the secrecy of the current
administration and their overt attempt to immunize the executive branch from
the Constitution and the principles of debate are the backbone of the war
and the creation of a military society in the united states.
i think that the idea of a Constitution Protection League as previously
posted would serve this purpose and make a fundamental linkage between
debate, peacemaking and constitutional principles of government.
lacking is a solid historical review of the importance of debate both as the
process and the implied accomplishment of the creation of the Constitution.
the neocons are sort of good at historical analysis in the sense that they
produce volumes of historical political science and philosophy in attempt to
connect their movement to the founding fathers. the content of that
analysis, however, is mostly not so good and more like a machine gun fire
approach. the formation of policy and the role of debate in the formation
of policy is radically different than it was in the founding father milieu.
secrecy was viewed as a tool of oppression by the king and unrestrained
public discussion the antidote. the neocons are unique in their academic
debating because irregardless of the content of their argument they have
created a feeder system between the academy, the think tanks, the television
networks, the newspapers, the military and the white house that basically
neutralizes any honest attempt to have public debate be the foundation of
our democratic society (the policy debate community participates in that
array of forces described as a feeder system). instead every possible
effort is made to use public argument in defense of the neutralization of
public argument. "how dare you get angry about the centralization of power
into the hands of the executive in a legitimate coup d'etat? it is our
argumentative right to defend the suppression of argument as an obstacle to
quick and speedy measures necessary during a time of war. if you don't
like our news, then watch another station even though we control the content
of all the stations through military murder coverups and restrictions on
journalists which of course are necessary for national security reasons like
everything else insiduous to democracy as framed by the founding fathers."
debaters have a unique calling toward the formation of the Constitution
Protection League and a genealogy of debate and the Constitution would prove
helpful in organizing and directing that effort. the genealogy would prove
effective in putting the neocons on the defensive in trying to defend their
Constitutional heritage especially if it included relatively, easy critical
attacks of the neocon political philosophy literature.
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
More information about the Mailman