(Hat tip to Atrios for this cartoon by Tom Tomorrow)
In psychology, one of the things we look at is the extent to which individuals actually perceive other people as "subjects," not just as "objects."
That is, "subjects" are entities that operate from a foundation of their own volition, power, agency and subjective experience, with human value in their own right. "Objects" are entities acted upon or otherwise used by "subjects."
Most people see themselves as subjects, with the exception of the hopelessly dependent or the paranoid. Both the hopelessly dependent and the paranoid see themselves as powerless entities subject to the whim and action of others, but aside from those cases, most people have some level of experience of their own independent agency, their "subjectivity," and of the subjectivity at least of those they know personally.
The most mentally healthy people are able to engage with and see others as subjects in their own right, not merely as objects. When someone is able to perceive the individual agency of others they don't even know personally, that person begins to achieve a higher level of personal emotional and social development. You can call that "wisdom" or "empathy."
Whatever you call it, you sure as hell can't call it "Republican."
It's been apparent for a long time to anyone paying attention that Republicans don't see our troops as people, but as props. Props for photo ops, props for sound bites, props for war profiteering, but not as people with lives, families, hopes and dreams of their own.
Today's hearings on Capitol Hill make this clear for any of the remedially sycophantic or psychopathic in the media or the electorate who have labored under the illusion that the Republican Party actually gives a shit about troops, citizens or the national defense.
Just thought that might be worth mentioning.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Fitz?
FITZMAS!
Pach!
Well of course they’re props. The Bush Adminstration does not govern; they market.
litigatormom @
3
They don’t just market, they GAME the market, Enron-style!
C-span still playing the hearing.
Disgraceful doesn’t begin to define it.There needs to be a major overhaul be done to this system.
Buber’s I-Thou relationship vs. I-It relationship. Classic.
And it sure as hell isn’t the Republican pundits and warmongers whose kids are getting torn up and left to fend for themselves in today’s military.
I live in the heart (if it had a heart, that is) of the D.C. swank belt, and nobody’s kid plans on the military. NUH-BUDDY.
RevDeb @ 6
Yup, yup, yup.
I and Thou helped me a lot in getting through my divorce. My ex- is very into I-It relationships …
BC
Mrs. Tarquin Biscuitbarrel @ 7
Reminds me of the headline I saw over the weekend. Why were there mo military recruiters at CPAC?
In addition to arguing about who cares about the troups, don’t forget to send a sizable contribution to any of a number of organizations supporting the troups and their families.
Mrs. Tarquin Biscuitbarrel @ 7
My son has wanted a military career since he was old enough to know that he had to do something as a nominal grown-up. He’s graduating from college and being commissioned in May (and my heart’s in my throat). He mentioned at his birthday dinner last night that during ROTC awareness day last week, parents were swinging a wide berth around the ROTC exhibits when the kids asked, “Hey, Mom, what’s that guy doing?” (That guy was my son, rappelling down the side of a building.)
BC
litigatormom @ 3
Ditto! And hi, Pach!
Send one-eye to Walter Reed for his clot needs
Richard Cheney rules, afterall, we are an Empire now . . .
Here’s a liberal web site with an extensive set of resources to support the troops and their families.
Eric Berne M.D. – Transactional Analysis:
“Exclusion is manifested by a stereotyped, predictable attitude which is steadfastly maintained as long a possible in the face of any threatening situation”.
cbl @ 13
And Cheney the Sith Lord
Props? And that is precisely the point I was making some time back when some opined I was using an objectionable word to describe how our soldiers were killed in Iraq. Good grief. These Republicans (also Lieberman and a few others) who are the engine in this killing machine we call Iraq don’t view our dead soldiers as being ‘killed’. For these miserable pieces of work, American soldiers are nothing but mere ‘expendables’ in a perverted and twisted “grand design”. What word best describes how Republicans view our dead American service men and women killed while serving in Iraq? I have no problem thinking of ‘that word’.
RevDeb @ 6
Rev Deb: I studied grad. psychology at a school that allowed you to do your electives at the divinity school. I’m very grateful they were that broadminded.
Bush should be asked at every opportunity why no one from his family is willing to serve.
Those same objects that were too stupid to stay in school so they joined the military? Those same objects that are just misguided children who were unable to make their own affirmative decision related to a career in the military.
Those who live in all glass houses should not throw stones.
“The most mentally healthy people are able to engage with and see others as subjects in their own right, not merely as objects. When someone is able to perceive the individual agency of others they don’t even know personally, that person begins to achieve a higher level of personal emotional and social development.”
Funny — I’ve never heard anyone from the left reference any individual in uniform as an individual —
This would be funny if you weren’t so sad
Here in Washington, the rest of the world is not real. I’m sorry, that’s just how it is.
Am trying to poke a few holes in the dam. Sorry to be awol this aft but work imploded. Nobody died today, the future I’m not so sure. Probably there will be some miracle like always. Step out on faith? Hell, I’m rollarskating on faith.
Maybe that will work for us in political reform as well.
Still hoping that my Walter Reed post can be shared with the readers here.
Gotta run.
Upcoming Conrad Black trial: “…the government will trot out a star-studded group of witnesses that could include former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle and former Illinois Gov. James Thompson.”
Wooo!! Hope I get jury duty….
Welcome to the wonderful world of capitalism. While they can pull triggers, they’re an asset. When that’s no longer the case, they’re a liability, a cost to be minimized.
It’s war that America loves, not the people who fight it.
Thanks Pach (and TT). For another side of the same coin, for those who missed it this AM, please go downstairs and check out Siun’s heartwrenching post.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 21
Sparkles, Your in Chicago, right? Could it be there is some live blogging in your future?
Me thinks Judy T doth protest too much, you troll; please don’t feed the trolls
Badwater @ 18
Oh, the Bush family IS serving, they are serving themselves at every oppportunity and at every public trough. It’s the family business.
The most mentally healthy people are able to engage with and see others as subjects in their own right, not merely as objects.
Strange, I’m quite mentally ill and yet I am able to see other people as real. Probably I don’t belong in Washington.
Sparkles the Iguana @ 22
The Canadian papers are saying that Fitz will just “supervise” this trial, that he won’t be in the courtroom. Too bad.
Isn’t referring to Valerie Plame as “the wife” a perfect example of thinking of another person as an object?
Patrick Fitzgerald echoed this point when he said that this case is “about someone to whom Wilson’s wife wasn’t a person but an argument.”
Do we need cleanup on Aisle 21? (referencing the one using the line ‘all you liberals’)
*sneezes uncontrollably* Hey, how’d all this straw get in here?
LizardBreath, over at lawyers,guns and money, spreads some scary gossip from the props that they had better get ready for the next photo op.. in iran
Speaking of Dead Eye, Dick, does anyone know if there is a difference between the VP’s problem and phlebitis, that (I think) Nixon had at one time?
Thinking(?) southerner — no I actually have family serving in Iraq and Afghanistan — I don’t need any lectures from the left on viewing them or their peers as individuals. I actually know them as real people who make real sacrifices.
Judy T @ 20
You know, my brothers both finished school. We lived in a small town with limited opportunity and the military was a way to serve our country as well as get out and see what the world was like. You’ve obviously never missed a meal or had hard times due to circumstances beyond your control. I know I’m not supposed to feed the trolls, but don’t come here spouting that bullshit about “too stupid, too lazy” to me. If you had everything to do for yourself on spec and a shoestring, you wouldn’t be able to function.
Ann in AZ @ 34
Nixon was less evil.
Eileen Joan @ 28
He was in the courtroom for some of the pre-trial stuff. Bail conditions and such. Frankly, I don’t see how he would be able to prep the Black trial. There is not enoughtime to memeorize that much info.
Prepping for trial is a bit like preparing to orally defend a dissertaion. Yo have to know everything, cold
But but, Pach…
Looseheadprops are people too…)
By the way, speaking of holding elected officials accountable for negligence and abuse…
DFA Night School returns – first session:
Holding Elected Leaders Accountable
March 6th – 8:30pm Eastern
RSVP today: http://www.dfalink.com/event.php?id=18353
Badwater @ 20
And perhaps the same for Hillary’s daughter too?
new thread – court update
Right, Parachutec. Objectification of others is also a primary symptom of narcissistic personality disorder, which Bush (and Cheney and Ann Coulter) all manifest. To the narcissist, nobody matters but self, all issues are framed in terms of self. It’s not about thousands of Americans and Iraqis being killed — it’s about Bush being the Decider. It’s not about the people who suffered the horrors of Katrina, it’s about Bush watching it all from on high. It’s not about warrantless wiretapping, blowing up habeas corpus or outing our own covert agent — it’s about Dubya’s (ie. Cheney’s) absolute power.
Ask the members of the DLC if they have any sons or daughters serving in Iraq. And how about Lieberman’s 19 year old son. Why isn’t he in Iraq?
OnT for PrevThread:
Aravosis at AmericaBlog has a video of Mitt and Coulter that (he sez) includes the back of Barbara Comstock’s head. Check the roots for yerself!
TeddySanFran @ 45
just watched it.
borrrrring.
I am getting sick to death of seeing Repubs come in on blogs, and cite that this is the soldier’s job ! that they volunteered for this. By this, they mean getting blown up by IEDs, being in the middle of a civil war.
And I will bet they are wondering WHY these guys can’t suck it out and stick it out in these VA hospitals, with the mold and rats and broken plumbing.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 40
While there’s plenty of non serving offspring, the lack of service by the Bush family is particularly egregious. Pointing out others allows the Bush family to escape scrutiny.
I actually know them as real people who make real sacrifices.
Me too! Which is probably the main reason why I abhor the Bush administration.
So, what do you want to wank about next?
looseheadprop @
39
And what makes it possible to go through the door into that dissertation defense is the fact that you probably know it better than your examiners. They may know pieces, but you’ve got the whole thing.
And the people/props thing is precisely where Fitz nailed Libby & Co in his closing: to BushCo, Valerie was an object to be tossed around and used.
Great post, Pach! (even if it gets short attention due to the new thread)
Bergs @ 48
yeah, anyway, apparently when you sign up for the military, you are no longer a human being, you’re just a piece of equipment.
Speaking of subjects, objects, and wounded props:
http://www.miftah.org/Display……egoryId=23
Funny — I’ve never heard anyone from the left reference any individual in uniform as an individual —
This would be funny if you weren’t so sad
What a sad comment that is. It says someone never sees or hears anything that isn’t handed to them from Authority, because otherwise they’d have noticed that it isn’t true.
Maybe we need a link to that post ‘Need’ and the one on accountability, just for the trolls.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 41
Personally, what I find most offensive about Jenna and not-Jenna is their apparent prediliction for the Paris Hilton lifestyle, rather than working for a living.
At least Chelsea has a job.
Any politician, regardless of political party who voted for the war in Iraq, does not call for a pull out, and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the terrible mistake that the Iraq attack was, is in my view fair game, as it were.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 37
Awww
Chelsea having a job is for me, beside the point.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 53
Republicans will do that just as soon as the war becomes owned by Democratic Party.
Badwater @ 59
This does not alter the premise.
I want my party, the Dems to cut off funding for the Iraq war and to not fund any unprovoked U.S. military attacks anywhere in the world.
Isn’t the picture of the wounded soldier here being used as a prop by the anti-war crowd? Isn’t it designed to elicit an emotional response of sympathy for the soldier, and then encourage a certain policy–immediate withdrawal from Iraq–as a result?
Seems like it to me…
Soldiers and sympathy/ support for soldiers gets used as a political football for both sides of most any foreign policy debate….
Oklahoma kiddo @ 56
Oklahoma kiddo @ 61
Me, too
Sorry, that photo is no prop. It’s the real world for that soldier, and for his family back home.
Tanker J.D. @ 62
That’s a bit like Nader claiming that both parties are the same. Clearly they are not. Republicans should not be allowed to hide behind an ‘everyone does it’ mindset.
Tanker J.D. @ 62
Which party has wrapped itself in the flag most?
Which one keeps using 9/11 as a political slogan?
Which party has called its opponents traitors?
Which party has used ‘law and order’ and ‘family values’ and ‘morality’ repeatedly for ‘do as I say, not as I do’?
Infrequently I lose sight of the fact that Bush and Cheney were draft dodgers during ‘Nam.
Badwater @ 65
Badwater–I wasn’t saying that as a defense for either party. I’m pointing out that the criticism runs both ways–both sides use “support the troops” as a mantra to bolster their policy arguments.
Some who support the policy put up the canard that any criticism of the policy is a failure to support the troops.
On the other side, though, others that criticise the policy focus on the fact of casualties to make their argument against the policy. Doing so reflects a less-than-genuine concern for the wounded. It’s like saying “you support the mission in which this soldier was wounded; therefore you don’t support the troops.”
It suffers from the same logical flaw.
Peterr @ 64
I’m not suggesting the photo was false or staged. I’m saying the use of it is designed to support a certain policy preference; it was being used as a prop.
Folks that support the continued presence in Iraq sometimes show very real pictures of uninjured soldiers doing nice things for Iraqi civilians. In that way, the photo, though real, is being used as “a prop”, according to the thesis of this post.
But under the same thesis, using a photo that shows a wounded soldier grimacing in order to elicit sympathies against the policy is also exploitive of the soldier’s condition.
Finally: isn’t it relevant what that particular wounded soldier feels about his service and the mission. What if he feels that picture shows his heroism, not suffering. How do we know how he feels about the mission? Can we ask him? Do we know his name? Does anyone care; or do they just want to make thier points for or against the policy based on what emotions can be attached to his image?
Oklahoma kiddo @ 67
Don’t forget how the right savaged Clinton for avoiding service during ‘Nam. Since they don’t savage Bush or Cheney, seems like they’re again using troops as props.
P J Evans @ 66
What do any of these questions have to do with whether the photo of the wounded soldier in this post is being used (probably without his consent) to support or undermine a policy position that the soldier either does or does not agree with.
Why is it o.k. for someone who disagrees with the policy to use this soldier’s pain as a point of argument; but it is not o.k. for someone who agrees with the policy to use this or other soldier’s pride as point for their argument?
Re: ‘You can call that “wisdom” or “empathy.”‘
The second of these terms has come up repeatedly in the posts and comments over the past year and a half that I have been a regular reader, sometimes just in the modulated form of the term “community” or others like it that this site has fostered and nurtured. I have been working on the concept of empathy as one of the moral sentiments necessary to the shift from a shame to a guilt basis of morality or ethics for the past several years, and I find the literature on this to be vast and expanding rapidly.
I do not get in early or often enough to add to the discussion here very much, but I think it would be useful to focus on empathy or the lack thereof as the source of our current hopes or current problems respectively as a country and race. Thus, I thank you for this post and the others that keep this before our eyes.
We might add to this failure on the part of our government the abject failure to alleviate the folks dispossessed in the wake of the hurricanes in 2005, our negligence in the deaths of Iraqi children throughout the 1990s, and our current devastation of Afghanistan and Iraq.
As unpleasant as it is to contemplate, we are not looking at a glass half full on any of these fronts.
Badwater @ 69
Don’t forget how the right savaged Al Gore for volunteering for service during ‘Nam. They value self-serving cowardice over duty every time.
Tanker J.D. @ 70
Consider Mrs Rumsfeld asking if the soldiers who were seen by Bush and her husband at Walter Reed were specially chosen (and the woman who took her to the support group where that was asked was promptly banned from Walter Reed). That’s a political use of the soldiers.
Consider the troops on bases being told they must attend events where Bush or Cheney appear.
Consider the soldiers who are asked to appear at GOP events in uniform.
Consider the military access to blogs being limited to those which are GOP-acceptable.
FYI — Clinton cut the budgets for the Walter Reed …..
This is way late in the discussion, but it is very apropos. Joe Galloway is my favorite military correspondent who tells it straight. This is his 3 Mar 07 column:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/…..819699.htm
I particularly like his suggestion to appoint a commission of Mothers to find out the truth instead on the usual suspects that sit on Government commissions.
What a great idea!!!
Stay tuned for Dick Cheney’s report on the quality of care he receives at Walter Reed for his blood clot … unless of course he’ll be seeking treatment elsewhere …
http://politicomix.blogspot.com/
I was once a “troop.” In fact, many in my family were once “troops.” And everyone in my family is a Democrat.
What certain Republicans have done to our “troops” today is disgraceful. They are treating our “troops” as if they were a tissue to be used to blow a Republican snout and then be discarded in some “waste” paper basket. Or maybe toilet paper? Certain Republicans are wiping the ass of Iraq with our “troops” and then flushing them down the toilet of the underfunded and mismanaged Veterans Administration.
And I said “certain” Republicans because not all Republicans are culpable in using our “troops” for their ass wiping and nose blowing schemes, just the insane and greedy neo-con Bush and Cheney Republicans. Unfortunately, there are far too many Republicans who have sided with these traitorous, murderous scum.