@politico: #Obama: Such a senseless and terrible act of violence has no place in a free society http://politi.co/fQmggR

What does that mean? Assuming even the best of intentions, does that sentiment mean much in the context of remarks from a contemporary President of the United States?

In trying to give those words meaning, these questions come to mind:

What does that imply about society? I don’t take it for granted that we live in a free one, if that was an implied premise.

Do I even agree with the statement? What does a free society need to endure, lest it stop being free?

I think we must consider the idea that a free society is going to have to accept some level of tragedy. We also need to consider how much tragedy is a function of an unfree society. I’m not sure the most vocal people who seize podiums and microphones want a free society or even understand what they want.

It seems necessary to consider the real causes of this particular incident. That will not come to light quickly and will involve both culpability through individual actions, for which people must be personally held responsible for, as well as broader contexts that our society has affected and we will desire to affect further in our response. The facts of this case are hardly clear enough now, yet many seem already dug into their positions.

When we aren’t engaged in demagogy, we are too prone to platitudes and political correctness in language. I think the latter is sometimes considered a positive trend that we think softens the former. I tend to think platitudes enable demagogy. It is this worry that was awakened by the quote from Obama’s statement.

I make a leap here: I would bet that demagogy played into the motivations of this attack (again, as subtext or on top of personal choices and circumstances for which there very well should be a very personal sort of culpability). That has a serious societal component. Are we going to be able to consciously engage it in our form of society and adequately represent real solutions in law, as we are said to be a nation of them?^† I doubt it; it is hard enough for me to here — but my ignorance is not reason enough for pessimism.

I am concerned that a national response will consist of varied reactionary positions to symptoms, both observed and supposed, individual and societal, rather than causes. The general trend of reactions I’ve seen so far (on Facebook, Twitter and in comments to news articles) do not seem to provide agency for the kind of mass politics I think required for the kind of change that will delegitimize violence and proactively encourage genuine social justice^‡: circumstances that I believe would engender a level of personal and community responsibility to greatly reduce this kind of violence without trading away personal freedom in law.

It is far too early to fully understand the full depth of this event, except that it is a tragedy, and that there seems to be incontrovertible evidence that there was at least one principle actor.

Real freedom incorporates justice which should dilute the causes of violence. Reactionary politics prevents freedom, encourages false dichotomies and engenders stronger reactions. Which way do you want the cycle to go?

One might assume this is all an oblique reference to “gun control.” While issue will almost certainly have renewed political focus, I am purposefully speaking more broadly because I think this tragedy will fuel reactionary crackdowns on seemingly less controversial rights and liberties too. With respect to gun control, I find both sides to fall into fallacies I’ve illustrated here and I can’t support the politics that seems to necessitate picking amongst the positions they put forth.

One might be sick of the nearly instantaneous politicization of this apparent assassination attempt. But as such it was politicized from the start. Those who do not acknowledge everything is politics and seize their civic responsibility are part of the problem that motivates us to pretend politics isn’t involved in some things or to turn our heads entirely. When we do this we leave a vacuum for those who make power and the allocation of resources toxic, ripe for abuse, creating the disparities that play into tragedies.

• ^† However flawed our concept of justice under the law might be…
• ^‡ Rather than reactively; as due process in the conviction of a someone found to be criminal perpetrating injustice is — which seems essential, with or without a state and its laws.

Long out of practice in even attempting to write, I am reading a selection of Orwell’s essays (both the polemic and the trite review and in between) rather than expanding on my own declaration of opinion. Maybe I will learn something. The two volumes are what I might’ve once called provocatively titled: All Art Is Propaganda and Facing Unpleasant Facts. But now they’re just remedial guides for dealing with the world.

In the meantime, I share these selections from contemporary polemicists who I think did a good and more timely job: challenging both the silly dismay of some Democrats in what they seem to perceive as Obama’s betrayal (it isn’t one, he campaigned on escalating the Afghan war) and the others who find Obama’s justification of escalation as a proper way to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, consistent with what he cited himself in the course of his speech.

• From Consortium News, an online publication whose cornerstone is Bob Parry Whatever Mistakes We Have Made by Nicholas J.S. Davies)
• From Jonathan Schwarz’s Orwell-inspired A Tiny Revolution a brief observation: Going Backwards
• ‘Just War’ is Just Words by Ralph Nader

Are Obama and Clinton Being Honest About How Afghan War Began?

…

RAHUL MAHAJAN: … It’s not clear how well President Obama and his advisers know this history, although it was all documented in Western newspapers at the time; what is clear is that his suggestion that the Taliban refused to negotiate is not primarily about justifying the war post-9/11 — that still remains unquestioned in mainstream U.S. politics — but rather about justifying his current position that strenuous anti-Taliban efforts in Afghanistan, including the recently announced surge, are a necessary part of ensuring U.S. national security.

I’m not sure how one can make a fair extrapolation of those states’ primary election results because of the conditions they were held under.

I’m not partial to either of these candidates, and I am not a Democrat. I am befuddled by what seems like a fanciful wish by more than just Hillary Clinton to extract a legitimate number from a process that was officially abandoned.

The Party punished those two states, fairly or unfairly, and secured pledges from its presidential candidates not to campaign there. Clinton had a higher profile by default, and did project an additional presence there more than Obama, although technically not campaigning there (she seemed to just hold fundraisers and getting more media attention for it, if Obama did the same he didn’t benefit the same).

Whether the rules are fair or not is moot at this point — they were put in place and agreed to. People made decisions and overt commitments based on these rules.

Obama, wishing to compete effectively and obeying the rules, spent his money and time elsewhere so as to not even get on the ballot in one case. If he had made an effort there, had the rules allowed, there almost certainly would have been a different outcome in those elections. He certainly would’ve succeeded in getting on the ballot.

Clinton doubled-back on her commitment to these rules after the fact and when the overall vote appeared closer and, presumably, her campaign became a little more desperate. She began to join the state parties in overtly agitating for retroactive representation, pleading in the language of democracy. While the disenfranchisement wasn’t so democrat, the re-enfranchisement she has pursued is not any more democratic.

A fair election that presented all the choices did not happen in these two states, and Clinton seems to have acted duplicitously.

I’d say that the party members in Michigan and Florida have valid reason to protest the tactics and rules of their national party, but I don’t see how the vote that happened under the circumstances it did could be considered fair and anything to base a delegation count on with any credibility. If the party decides to give the states representation at the convention, and assign delegates based on those primary votes, I would think it would only secure in many minds that this party is even more schizophrenic or a farce.

The capital-D Democrats seem to have little to do with democracy. (And this is hardly the first cause to inspire that observation.)