This and the Clinton article you wrote I feel really drive at a facet of the neoliberal/liberal conservative geopolitical mindset: informed ignorance.
They speak a slew of details, but at the end of the day they can only view conflicts as good vs evil. The reasons behind the conflict are left as an intrinsic nature of the two parties. Good will resist evil, evil will attack good. They fail to understand that these conflicts are almost always way more complicated. It’s why Iraq went from a pseudo-ally during the Iraq-Iran conflicts to our enemy in desert storm. Same with the Mujahideen/Al Qaeda.
"This and the Clinton article you wrote I feel really drive at a facet of the neoliberal/liberal conservative geopolitical mindset: informed ignorance."
I'm glad you picked up on that! I wrote them back to back, so I think some of my frustration with Clinton's words carried over into my view of the book. Failing to understand the nuances (or in some cases, obscuring them from the American public), is one of the greatest follies of the American Empire, IMO. It's why we got into Iraq, then immediately realized it had only begun. We thought we were "the good guys," and didn't understand why Iraqis who dislike Sadam were fighting us.
And then we've replicated that mistake again and again, most recently with the Ukraine situation.
This encapsulates why I like to read (or listen to) at least 3 biographies before I really feel like I understand a person, and at least 5 different news stories about the same event. Sometimes there are unintentional omissions, even without an agenda.. and then, of course, there are also agendas.
"I like to read at least 3 biographies before I really feel like I understand a person."
I love that! It's like the old adage of blind men feeling an elephant. Each of them grasps a different part, and though they're all correct, they each have a different interpretation. Especially with biographies, where the writer is probably interviewing the subject's friends an family (or them themselves) and is likely to grow fond of them during humanization.
Well said RE the elephant analogy. History is a collection of trinkets from the past, and we have had to put together what these pieces meant, and how they all fit together. Additional perspectives are badly needed in order to tell us anything resembling reality.
This and the Clinton article you wrote I feel really drive at a facet of the neoliberal/liberal conservative geopolitical mindset: informed ignorance.
They speak a slew of details, but at the end of the day they can only view conflicts as good vs evil. The reasons behind the conflict are left as an intrinsic nature of the two parties. Good will resist evil, evil will attack good. They fail to understand that these conflicts are almost always way more complicated. It’s why Iraq went from a pseudo-ally during the Iraq-Iran conflicts to our enemy in desert storm. Same with the Mujahideen/Al Qaeda.
"This and the Clinton article you wrote I feel really drive at a facet of the neoliberal/liberal conservative geopolitical mindset: informed ignorance."
I'm glad you picked up on that! I wrote them back to back, so I think some of my frustration with Clinton's words carried over into my view of the book. Failing to understand the nuances (or in some cases, obscuring them from the American public), is one of the greatest follies of the American Empire, IMO. It's why we got into Iraq, then immediately realized it had only begun. We thought we were "the good guys," and didn't understand why Iraqis who dislike Sadam were fighting us.
And then we've replicated that mistake again and again, most recently with the Ukraine situation.
This encapsulates why I like to read (or listen to) at least 3 biographies before I really feel like I understand a person, and at least 5 different news stories about the same event. Sometimes there are unintentional omissions, even without an agenda.. and then, of course, there are also agendas.
"I like to read at least 3 biographies before I really feel like I understand a person."
I love that! It's like the old adage of blind men feeling an elephant. Each of them grasps a different part, and though they're all correct, they each have a different interpretation. Especially with biographies, where the writer is probably interviewing the subject's friends an family (or them themselves) and is likely to grow fond of them during humanization.
Well said RE the elephant analogy. History is a collection of trinkets from the past, and we have had to put together what these pieces meant, and how they all fit together. Additional perspectives are badly needed in order to tell us anything resembling reality.
"Additional perspectives are badly needed in order to tell us anything resembling reality."
I couldn't have said it better myself.