Went last weekend to the Traverse Area Library's "Cinema Curiosa", a monthly series with different films (largely documentary and very left-leaning) and really excellent cookies. Playing for February was "The Weather Underground", about the extreme SDS faction.
If you're not familiar with the Weatherman, you can check out Wikipedia's entry about them. I'm not one of those pointy-headed intellectuals who makes ridiculous statements like "Terrorism never accomplishes anything". This is plainly false, and many of the most effective freedom movements in history used tactics that would today be described as "terrorism". (See The American Revolution, Mandela, Zionism, and more.) But it rarely works without serious consequences and even more rarely has the planned or desired effect.
The most consistently useless approach is the idea that blowing up dozens (or more) people, related only obliquely to the concerns of the revolutionaries will "Wake People Up" and bring about the long awaited fighting in the streets. I can't think of any example in history when this did in fact occur, and yet revolutionaries still seem to accept it as gospel (much like free market theory, but that's a topic for another article.) This was the delusion of the Weathermen, and it was later shared by Tim McVeigh, and is still employed regularly by Palestinian terror groups.
The interesting question for me in all this: How does one get to the point where this is a reasonable belief? My hypothesis is that it is based largely on an ability to stop recognizing the humanity of the other side in a disagreement.*** A big part of preparing soldiers for war is getting them to stop seeing the enemy as human beings, but instead as animals or devils or something else beneath contempt. There are countless examples of this behavior in every war in history (somewhat apropos to the current situation, one of the primary methods for dehumanizing is political cartoons). It is to the credit of the liberal movements throughout history that they tend to resist this dehumanization the most. From Jane Fonda to Sean Penn, there is a history of refusing to recognize a military enemy as inhuman and without any rights.
But it seems that rarely do they give the same benefit of the doubt to their "political" enemies. I have heard more liberals decry the evil of President Bush than of al-Qaeda. Talk about moral relativism! It's not that they think al-Qaeda is just misunderstood, but they are much more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to them then they are to people who might live next door.
This phenomenon is not new, certainly beliefs were much the same about Nixon and Reagan and Bush's father. But it *does* seem to be accelerating. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I support all (or even most) of Bush's policies. I'm not saying that he is the greatest President (or even a particularly good one). What I am saying is that I don't think he's evil, or deliberately trying to ruin the country, or in any way on a moral plane with Osama bin Laden. And implying otherwise, even for laughs, is the first step on a path that decends to a very dark place.
***Much of this is based on Jonathan Glover's excellent book "Humanity", which goes into much more detail about how human being overcome their moral and ethical beliefs and still commit horrible acts. Highly recommended.
The quintessential "film that writes itself". Also an awesome 25 words or less pitch to a producer. In fact a 5 words or less pitch: "Snakes! On a Plane! Right?"
Apparently not a joke. The sad part: I'll still probably see it, because how can you resist snakes on a plane.
Thanks to Galapagos for the tip off.