Skip to main content

As an ardent student of history, and I'm 60 years old now, so I've lived a bit of too, it long ago occurred to me the winners, in order to win, must often be much more aggressive than the losers, they must outdo their foe... and so, very often become a more threatening force, a force more powerful than the vanquished, and perhaps a force even more dreadful.

An easy example is how a separatist and seemingly peace-loving USA devolved into a Red baiting/hating nuclear super power obsessed with Communism, to the extent of holding its citizens hostages of terroristic loyalty inquisitions, violently trampling almost word for word everything we had been urged to go to war against.

That's the easy example. It gets lots harder during and after Nixon, but by the reign of Reagan, nothing much was left but exploitation of gullibility and celebration of propaganda.

G.W.Bush & Co. not only declared "Mission Accomplished" apropos to nothing, they deserted the field in the midst of defeat.

Victory became "We're out of here, enjoy the bankrupted mess we created on purpose. Enjoy the spoil and waste of the very system that buried you in debt, debased your financial institutions, embroiled you in foreign conflicts, and will now afflict you like the plague."

Spoils 2012 ~ We were victorious, but it may be that all that can be accomplished in the next four years is to set the table for another Republican victory feast... upon the spoils.

Let's skip the magic tangerine rope, and discuss.

Instances of victors becoming more undesirable than their vanquished foes...

Well, since you have to be way more bad ass than your enemy to win, it's kind of systematic, but historically, getting your ass kicked can make you highly defensive, like Rome... they became hugely victorious, pretty much and for a really long time... against anybody who defeated them. Etruscans, Celts!, Carthaginians, and their own people, etc., everybody.

Then there was the whole thing about so-called christians, which I say because Christians may have been destroyed by the time they emerged 'victoriously' as the new game in town... less competent and much more unsavory (for 1200+ years, or 1600+ if you're still counting, years) than the Romans.

Or, you could just notice how Green Bay Packer fans hate the Chicago Bears more than they love their own team!?

Anyway, I truly believe that we paid a price defeating Romney/Ryan, and through it all, and even well after, even now, facing up to the enemy, their avalanche of hurtful lies, we have been "subdued... like the dyer's hand..." Now let us strive for Unity!

Comments welcome!

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead

    "...conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less." E. J. Dionne Jr.

    by Fulgour on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 11:40:45 PM PST

  •  Fulgour... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fulgour

    This sure is a departure from some of your early diaries...

    And I mean that as a compliment.

    I'm just...surprised, because it seemed you weren't giving as much thought to your writing before, and this is markedly better.




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
    ~ Jerry Garcia

    by DeadHead on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 01:18:51 AM PST

    •  111 (0+ / 0-)

      O! for my sake do you with Fortune chide,
      The guilty goddess of my harmful deeds,
      That did not better for my life provide
      Than public means which public manners breeds.
      Thence comes it that my name receives a brand,
      And almost thence my nature is subdued
      To what it works in, like the dyer's hand:
      Pity me, then, and wish I were renewed;
      Whilst, like a willing patient, I will drink
      Potions of eisell 'gainst my strong infection;
      No bitterness that I will bitter think,
      Nor double penance, to correct correction.
      Pity me then, dear friend, and I assure ye,
      Even that your pity is enough to cure me.

      –William Shakespeare

      "...conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less." E. J. Dionne Jr.

      by Fulgour on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 10:02:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Aggressive humans have to be aggressive (0+ / 0-)

    because that's. apparently, all they have going for them. If they don't take what they can while the getting is good, they'll get nothing because they've got nothing of value to trade.
    In the Bible, the lord distributes talents. The parable doesn't tell what happens to the talentless, who continue to go without. There's an assumption that everyone has at least one. But, what if a person is dumb?
    The Cons get insulted when they are accused of incompetence. But, in fact, that's what they are. They take because they have no alternative. They can't make anything in the sense of manufacture; only in the sense of coercing by the use of force. Force is all they have.

    "Make me" is an invitation, not a challenge, to their ears.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 02:01:36 AM PST

    •  if someone has no talents then he has no (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hannah

      responsibility or a free trip to Heaven.  This does fit in with theology as the tenet is that the rich have a harder time getting into Heaven because they are so blessed on Earth.  Therefore, being more blessed, they should accomplish so much more.  The man with no talent has to accomplish nothing and if he does make something of nothing, then he has achieved salvation

  •  if the victors write the histories, I would have (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PowWowPollock

    the addendum that while victors are the more aggressive (i.e, Germans never developed effective heavy bomber while Allies did; imagine the Battle of Britain had the Germans had a B-24) I would also add that aggression is its own punishment, with aggressors, from the Romans to the Axis, sooner or later being victims of their own success.  By being aggressive, they won, until they lost by winning.  That is, they extended their resources and supply lines so far that they were no longer sustainable.  For the Romans it was Scotland and the Teutonburg Forest  and Parthia; for the Germans, it was GB and USSR and for the Japanese it was China and Hawaii.

    If we take this as a lesson from history, the recent implosions in American foreign policy can be interpreted in the same light; we are victims of our own success.  for the GOP, I would say their implosion is less the product of successful Democratic strategy than it is their own failure from their own successes, dating back to Reagan and being fully realized with GWB

  •  150 years ago... (0+ / 0-)

    We had a civil war, ever after designated as the Civil War.

    How truly reprehensible was the North in 1860..? Those in the South may have had reason to feel different from their northern brethren in 1860 ~ but by 1870 during Reconstruction there could be no doubt...

    As the victors, the North became a detestable tyranny far more hateful than ever imagined previously.

    So, my contention is, the "spoils" of victory are the self-inflicted wounds of being the winner.

    "...conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less." E. J. Dionne Jr.

    by Fulgour on Tue Jan 29, 2013 at 10:36:10 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site