Hunting The Muse

Spain, Terrorism Victory, and Double Binds

Josh Marshall quotes from another about the right-wing "Spain appeasement" argument and writes:

However, I think Ash has a very good point when he writes the following ...

So far as the Spanish voters' intentions are concerned, the election result was not subjectively a victory for al-Qaida. But it is, as Marxists used to say, an objective victory for al-Qaida. The Madrid bombings look likely to do exactly what a message posted on a radical Islamist website months ago said they should do: exploit the election moment to knock Spain out of the "Crusader-Zionist" coalition in Iraq. Conclusion: terror works.

I don't see how you get around that.

The whole reason that they can argue that it "works" is because the terrorists are opportunistic. I mean, they're on record as saying they want Bush to win because he serves their purposes. The same logic could be extended to saying that the reelection of the Spain Popular party would have served their purposes and been a victory in the same way. Basically, you can argue that any result other than the complete eradication of terrorists everywhere is a victory for the terrorists. Refusing to invade Iraq was, Bush argued, a victory for terrorism. The outcome of invading Iraq is, we argue, an objective victory for terrorism as well. So what's the point of using "victory for terrorists" as a scorecard?

In psychology there's a term called "double bind". It's basically when a bully puts you in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. Sometimes the responsibility lies with the bully, but ultimately the responsibility lies with the person that has allowed the double bind to have power over them. The people of Spain knew very well that a Socialist victory could have been painted as an act of appeasement, and a victory for terrorism. They knew it ahead of time. They did it anyway. The way you get out of a double bind is to simply refuse to accept the premises of the argument.

The right wing and the terrorists have a lot in common in terms of their political approach. They set things up to break (they don't care how), and then they claim victory. The way to oppose that is to call them out on it.

Update: This entry has already created some discussion - Tamara writes:

...as well as not accepting the premise, you also need to realize that "they" are not seeking understanding but are seeking to confuse. The right wing makes a lot of noise that way. Yes over here, no over there... (which is right? when? I don't get it.. I'm confused...) and that allows them to be opportunistic and tell you when it's right/wrong.

Posted by Curt at March 19, 2004 01:52 PM