That's what Josh Marshall has to say about Democratic politicians. He ought to believe it, though; the Democrats have had their nervous systems disrupted.
It may become clearer why I speak of a dying, aristotelian, two-valued
system by giving examples of how this type of evaluation is at the
foundation of present day confusions and terrors. Thus, for instance,
the Nazi militant delusion of `chosen people' gives us an excellent
illustration of a two-valued, `either-or' orientation. The two-valued
semantic twisting of `real neutrality' is another significant example.
This distortion has kept the `neutrals' in terrors, disorganizing
their national and political life to the point of complete collapse,
which today is a historical fact. The Nazi two-valued evaluation of
`neutrality' was: either be `really neutral' and endorse and fight for
the Nazis, or be `not really neutral' and not help them. According to
this orientation a `really neutral' Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway,
etc., should fight against England, France, etc., to prove that they
are `really neutral'!
A similar analysis applies to the `aggression' of China against Japan,
Czechoslovakia against Germany, Poland against Germany, Poland against
Russia, Finland against Russia, Greece against Italy, etc., and so on
endlessly, which shows only the pathological application of the
two-valued, `either-or' patterns in action. This analysis applies also
to the first World War and the `war guilt'. In a non-aristotelian
orientation we ask for actual facts, and do not accept mere
verbalism. Who invaded whom? The historical facts are simple. We know
by now who invaded whom, and never mind verbal definitions.
(From Alfred Korzybski, introduction to the second edition of Science and Sanity; see http://www.esgs.org/uk/bibl.htm)