[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Death of a clown? (click to view)
Date: October 22, 2011
Colonel Momar Quaddaffi was one of the most evil, murderous tyrants of the 20th century. He was also a wacky eccentric who enjoyed wearing funny clothes and saying silly things. Are these two factoids equal in relevance?

In the press coverage following Quaddaffi's long-overdue murder, I've noticed it's been distressingly common for journalists to spend just as much column space — if not more — assembling lurid lists of trivia about the slain dictator's quirks as they do documenting his four decades of crimes against humanity. We all know, for instance, that Quaddaffi had all-female bodyguards and a Ukrainian nurse, but what about the fact that Libyan embassy officials once opened fire on street protestors in London, England? Or that Quadaffi tried, on no less than three separate occasions, to invade and conquer the neighbouring nation of Chad, killing around 35,000 people in one of Africa's bloodiest state-to-state wars?

This profile of the man in yesterday's National Post breezily summaries a few of his war crimes, but mostly as a segue into a panoply of "wacky" facts such as his love of flamenco dancing and pathetic acrophobia. Personally, I would have rather heard a few more words about Quaddaffi's role as a patron of the Red Brigade, the notorious Italian terror group responsible for the 1978 assassination of prime minister Aldo Moro. But instead we got some funny tweets from Piers Morgan about how hard it is to spell "Quaddaffi."

For whatever reason, the western press has a long history of getting its priorities wrong when it comes to offering balanced coverage of global despots. It's now widely acknowledged by historians, for instance, that part of the reason the world didn't do more to stop the murderous regimes of Idi Amin (1925-2003) of Uganda or Emperor Bokassa (1921-1996) of Central Africa was because the media found it more fun to talk about these guys' garish outfits, lavish appetites, or childish collections than the very real horror they were unleashing upon their own people. (Colonel Quaddaffi was an enthusiastic backer of both regimes, by the way).

At the time, the assumption was that the public was more interested in hearing about the exotic colourfulness of foreign lands than their actual problems — a problem which has only compounded in the modern era, where we're increasingly disposed to merge hard news and entertainment together outright. In the age of cable and the internet, Quadaffi can't just be a gory headline, he must also be a meme, a punchline, and a Halloween costume. Every major story of the new cycle must be able to straddle journalism, comedy, human interest, and celebrity gossip simultaneously, since we now ingest our media out of a large common pot, where everything swirls around together. Only in the year 2011 could the story of a Middle Eastern civil war also be a story about Charlie Sheen, or Usher, or Jeffery Ross.

There are signs of change, though. Ruling for an insane 42 years, Quaddaffi was perhaps destined to die an anachronism, a living reminder of a time when dictators were, in fact, considerably more flamboyant and erratic than they are today. You look at someone like Bashar al-Assad or Hu Jinato and they're just normal-looking, suit-wearing guys who have inherited control of a terrifying, but undeniably monotonous and drearily bureaucratic authoritarian regime, lacking the ghoulish hilarity of renamed calendar months or rotating golden statues or whatever. One hopes that as these, and other dictatorships, continue to feel the squeeze of political opposition — both internal and external — the press will be forced to simply cover the explicit facts of their rule, lacking any entertaining diversions about clothes or concubines to distract their energy into irrelevant puff pieces.

As an editorial cartoonist, obviously I'm sympathetic to the idea that humor or absurdity can be a useful vehicle to deliver important political messages, and that dark humor in particular can often hit harder than darkness alone. With Quaddaffi, however, it seems that the scale broke at some point, and the man reached his heights of comic silliness in the public imagination at precisely the time when foreign opposition to his regime should have been the most steadfast and serious.

The lesson of Quaddaffi is that it's entirely possible for evil and eccentricity to exist in the same body, and that an undisciplined personality of excess can elevate both to the level of truly grotesque spectacle. But that doesn't imply equality between the two hobbies, or even that one directly abetted the other. To give equal coverage to crime and spectacle is to imply a flippant moral equivalency that ultimately discredits our ability to be accurate historians of our own era.

As they reread some of their own trite coverage, I hope it's a conclusion the journalists of the world will belatedly appreciate.

After all, one day Kim Jong Il will die, too.

[GreenTiger]

He was a bit of a clown. I'm waiting for Kim Jong Ill to die, not that North Korea will change one of his sons will take over but it would be a peasant thing to hear on the radio on my way to work.

[CommanderSock]

Wow, this was very well written.

Thanks.

To add to that, we forget possibly the most eccentric African dictators of all time, the Pharaohs of Egypt. Of course before the European/Greek takeover, when Egypt was still pretty much an indigenous affair. They built massive tombs and wasted huge amounts of the state budgets on grand but useless projects, only to leave the empire in neglect and poverty, and eventual takeover from outsiders.

Parallels to Libya perhaps?

[Zipperfish]

I think it's very important, for propaganda purposes, that these people be made clowns. Portraying the leader of the enemy as not in full possession of his faculties is the oldest one in the book.

Either that, or you have to present a case as to why clinically insane people so often end up as heads of various regimes we've clashd with over the years. Hitler--crazy. Mussolini--nuts. Saddam--So-damn Insane. Kim Jong Il--Cuckoo. Chavez--what's wihth that guy? Ahmadinejad--mad in Iran.

It's a convenient propaganda tool because, if crazy, the man's actions and motivations are not examined. Nobody has to think of, for example, the capitalist excesses of Batista's Cuba or the factors which gave rise to the socialist revolution in Cuba. All they have to remember is Castro? Cuh-razeeeeee. Much simpler. Makes great copy too.

[CKASlacker]

Zipperfish wrote:

It's a convenient propaganda tool because, if crazy, the man's actions and motivations are not examined. Nobody has to think of, for example, the capitalist excesses of Batista's Cuba or the factors which gave rise to the socialist revolution in Cuba. All they have to remember is Castro? Cuh-razeeeeee. Much simpler. Makes great copy too.

Totally agreed -- it's much easier to label the horrific excesses of the Nazis as 'nuts' rather than examine them more closely. The thought that they were otherwise rational is unpleasant.

Josef Mengele reportedly cried when listening to Mozart, but dispassionately murdered children under the guise of "scientific experiments". It's much more comforting to dismiss him as insane, rather than attempt to plumb the depths of man's inhumanity to man.

[Psudo]

My first memory that relates in any way to politics is watching a news story about Reagan's order to bomb Qaddafi's home and the resulting backlash of criticism against Reagan. I was seven. Qaddafi's wife and kids were killed, but he wasn't home. After watching the story, I had a little talk with my mom about it. She wasn't delighted that her little boy had seen such a violent story on the news. I thought they were criticizing Reagan for failing to kill Qaddafi, but my mother assured me that though he was a "terrorist" (which she had to define for me) that they were criticizing Reagan for trying to kill him at all. It was unfathomable to me then, and it's unfathomable to me now, that making minimalist efforts to end tyranny are considered part of the problem in some circles.

Today, instead of the American left criticizing Reagan, it's the international community criticizing Obama. We overstepped our authority in Libya, they say, in targeting an individual for assassination. Maybe the topic of US Presidents targeting murderous foreign leaders for assassination needs to be addressed, but Qaddafi's death is a stupid time for it. Obama used Reagan's rhetoric to get elected, and now he's accomplished one of Reagan's goals. It seems that the American left and right agree that murderous dictators deserve to die and see their oppressive governments overthrown in pursuit of freedom. I'm glad for that.

Symbolically, it feels like bookends. I got interested in politics to understand why people defended seemingly ridiculous positions on issues, and I feel like I understand it now. One of my intuitive assumptions was proven right: people don't pick their positions because they're stupid or being rebellious, but because they believe their reasoning makes better sense. And it does make some sense, even when they're clearly wrong. Maybe I should be done with it.

[Zipperfish]

Psudo wrote:

My first memory that relates in any way to politics is watching a news story about Reagan's order to bomb Qaddafi's home and the resulting backlash of criticism against Reagan. I was seven. Qaddafi's wife and kids were killed, but he wasn't home. After watching the story, I had a little talk with my mom about it. She wasn't delighted that her little boy had seen such a violent story on the news. I thought they were criticizing Reagan for failing to kill Qaddafi, but my mother assured me that though he was a "terrorist" (which she had to define for me) that they were criticizing Reagan for trying to kill him at all. It was unfathomable to me then, and it's unfathomable to me now, that making minimalist efforts to end tyranny are considered part of the problem in some circles.

Today, instead of the American left criticizing Reagan, it's the international community criticizing Obama. We overstepped our authority in Libya, they say, in targeting an individual for assassination. Maybe the topic of US Presidents targeting murderous foreign leaders for assassination needs to be addressed, but Qaddafi's death is a stupid time for it. Obama used Reagan's rhetoric to get elected, and now he's accomplished one of Reagan's goals. It seems that the American left and right agree that murderous dictators deserve to die and see their oppressive governments overthrown in pursuit of freedom. I'm glad for that.

Symbolically, it feels like bookends. I got interested in politics to understand why people defended seemingly ridiculous positions on issues, and I feel like I understand it now. One of my intuitive assumptions was proven right: people don't pick their positions because they're stupid or being rebellious, but because they believe their reasoning makes better sense. And it does make some sense, even when they're clearly wrong. Maybe I should be done with it.

I guess couched in such convenient terms its hard to argue against your case. How about throwing a curve ball in. How many civilians is America allowed to kill to overthrow oppressive governments in pursuit of freedom?

The Gadaffi business has gone quite well so far. Like the first Gulf War went well. (I as wrong about that one, in my opinion, since I opposed it). Vietnam and Iraq did not go well. Afghanistan, is not exactly a disaster, but I don't think anyone would argue it's been tremendously effective either. Somewhere there has to be a argument for intervention that makes sense. I can't help but think that, for both Vietnam and Iraq, the public were deceived as to the reasons for involvement in the conflict.

[GreenTiger]

Zipperfish wrote:

Psudo wrote:

My first memory that relates in any way to politics is watching a news story about Reagan's order to bomb Qaddafi's home and the resulting backlash of criticism against Reagan. I was seven. Qaddafi's wife and kids were killed, but he wasn't home. After watching the story, I had a little talk with my mom about it. She wasn't delighted that her little boy had seen such a violent story on the news. I thought they were criticizing Reagan for failing to kill Qaddafi, but my mother assured me that though he was a "terrorist" (which she had to define for me) that they were criticizing Reagan for trying to kill him at all. It was unfathomable to me then, and it's unfathomable to me now, that making minimalist efforts to end tyranny are considered part of the problem in some circles.

Today, instead of the American left criticizing Reagan, it's the international community criticizing Obama. We overstepped our authority in Libya, they say, in targeting an individual for assassination. Maybe the topic of US Presidents targeting murderous foreign leaders for assassination needs to be addressed, but Qaddafi's death is a stupid time for it. Obama used Reagan's rhetoric to get elected, and now he's accomplished one of Reagan's goals. It seems that the American left and right agree that murderous dictators deserve to die and see their oppressive governments overthrown in pursuit of freedom. I'm glad for that.

Symbolically, it feels like bookends. I got interested in politics to understand why people defended seemingly ridiculous positions on issues, and I feel like I understand it now. One of my intuitive assumptions was proven right: people don't pick their positions because they're stupid or being rebellious, but because they believe their reasoning makes better sense. And it does make some sense, even when they're clearly wrong. Maybe I should be done with it.

I guess couched in such convenient terms its hard to argue against your case. How about throwing a curve ball in. How many civilians is America allowed to kill to overthrow oppressive governments in pursuit of freedom?

The Gadaffi business has gone quite well so far. Like the first Gulf War went well. (I as wrong about that one, in my opinion, since I opposed it). Vietnam and Iraq did not go well. Afghanistan, is not exactly a disaster, but I don't think anyone would argue it's been tremendously effective either. Somewhere there has to be a argument for intervention that makes sense. I can't help but think that, for both Vietnam and Iraq, the public were deceived as to the reasons for involvement in the conflict.

I agree. There times when intervention is warranted and it works, but as in Vietnam and Iraq which the intervention was based on lies that we swallowed the results were less than good.

[PENATRATOR]

Oh shit, I saw the title and I thought the worst had occured to AndyT

[Psudo]

Zipperfish, I was making a statement about my own feelings about politics the personal impact of this issue, not an argument in favor of international intervention generally. Even if I had been, we both agree that intervention is justified at times and not at others; we only have quantities and exchange rates left to discuss. Doesn't that sound tedious?

[Trenacker]

For me, undoubtedly the strangest aspect of the last week has been the lack of philosophical hand wringing. I can't remember how the world greeted Nicolai Ceausescu's violent death, but I find it striking that even the death of Saddam Hussein, who arguably outshone Gaddafi in terms of his evil, and certainly outshone him during the 1990s and early 2000s, aroused more sober emotion. The response to Gaddafi's death is substantially more celebratory even beyond Libya's borders -- in spite of the fact that, after 2003, he essentially fell off the radar for the United States. I would argue that our participation in Libya probably results from a European request, and Obama's desire to be seen to keep our international obligations, rather than from more discrete material interest.

The issue that always arises for me is how one balances great and undeniable evil against (A) the national self-interest that drives us to excuse "our sonuvabitch," and (B) the more philosophical question of whether assassination, or even judicial execution, even of a dictator, is a kind of lese majeste.

How do we respond when people call for a trial of Henry Kissinger or Donald Rumsfeld? How do we respond to people who justify the actions of the Viet Cong, or, even worse, the Khmer Rouge by invoking the misrule of a Ngo Din Diem or a Lon Nol? Jeanne Kirkpatrick was frank: the U.S. made common cause with authoritarian regimes in order to discourage the spread of Communism internationally. What are the moral and ethical implications of shielding a Pinochet, only to stand by as he is put on trial, and possibly sentenced to death, years later?

Then there is the related, but even more morally wrenching, question of whether national leaders are, if not above, then at least outside, the law. Charles Tilly once convincingly compared state-making to organized crime: the European state is arguably the byproduct of constant warfare initiated almost purely for the sake of acquisition. The paramount ruler gains his paramountcy through the violent subjugation, or else elimination, of competitors, actual and potential. Are subjects bound to give their loyalty to the state? Can some people, some groups, ever be said to hamper, or prevent, progress?

Having arrived in modernity, and with values that have changed over the centuries, are we to build states using an antiquated set of norms? If we apply the new norms, do we inflict grave distortions that make it too difficult to impose order or constancy? By insisting that there be no losers, do we subvert the very idea of the collective good, which may in fact represent a diminution in power, influence, and happiness for some? When has a ruler crossed the line irrevocably? If Andrew Jackson were alive, ought we to put him on trial? If not him, why others?

Inevitably, there is no satisfactory answer. We engage in conscious hypocrisy because it is too difficult to establish a rule. So long as we do not need a ruler, he or she can be sacrificed on the altar of the popular will, or given over to the law. The interesting question is what this level of susceptibility does to rulers who are on the brink. The benefit of power is obvious: so long as a state retains sovereignty, and its ruler a shred of domestic control, he is safe from the law. But the moment he loses that control, it is not gilded exile, but possible death at the hands of a mob, or else at the end of a rope.

[GreenTiger]

Zipperfish wrote:

I think it's very important, for propaganda purposes, that these people be made clowns. Portraying the leader of the enemy as not in full possession of his faculties is the oldest one in the book.

Either that, or you have to present a case as to why clinically insane people so often end up as heads of various regimes we've clashd with over the years. Hitler--crazy. Mussolini--nuts. Saddam--So-damn Insane. Kim Jong Il--Cuckoo. Chavez--what's wihth that guy? Ahmadinejad--mad in Iran.

It's a convenient propaganda tool because, if crazy, the man's actions and motivations are not examined. Nobody has to think of, for example, the capitalist excesses of Batista's Cuba or the factors which gave rise to the socialist revolution in Cuba. All they have to remember is Castro? Cuh-razeeeeee. Much simpler. Makes great copy too.

True,
If you want to change public opinion against some foreign(or domestic) individual you present as being insane and/or unstable. it has been done for centuries.
A lot of the tyrants in the world in the 20th century have been clinically diagnosed with mental disorders. I don't think there are many objective pofessionals who think that Hitler, Stalin, ,Kim Jong Il, Kaddafy, Saddam Hussein were/are well adjusted folks.

I not a professional, but as far as Batista goes I think he was more of a corrupt pig rather than being mentally Ill.

It is a good question as to why some of these mentally Ill people end up as heads of state.

[Trenacker]

Quote:

It is a good question as to why some of these mentally Ill people end up as heads of state.

Perhaps because they are capable of enduring privations and taking risks, or simply reaching for things, that most rational people would not. As a result, more the reward.

[Zipperfish]

GreenTiger wrote:

True,
If you want to change public opinion against some foreign(or domestic) individual you present as being insane and/or unstable. it has been done for centuries.
A lot of the tyrants in the world in the 20th century have been clinically diagnosed with mental disorders. I don't think there are many objective pofessionals who think that Hitler, Stalin, ,Kim Jong Il, Kaddafy, Saddam Hussein were/are well adjusted folks.

I not a professional, but as far as Batista goes I think he was more of a corrupt pig rather than being mentally Ill.

It is a good question as to why some of these mentally Ill people end up as heads of state.

Well, thanks for proving my point. All the tyrants who were enemies o the US are "clinically diagnosed with mental disorders." But Batista was sane.

[Zipperfish]

Trenacker wrote:

Quote:

It is a good question as to why some of these mentally Ill people end up as heads of state.

Perhaps because they are capable of enduring privations and taking risks, or simply reaching for things, that most rational people would not. As a result, more the reward.

Perhaps people who no longer have to fear social sanction or fear of repercussions of their actions behave differently.

Milgram's 37.