Stay Tough, the Union
My co-workers first words to me this morning about the President's State of the Union address last night were his opinion that he thought Bush was "trying to sound like a liberal". Interesting observation....I wonder if others thought the same thing.
I read over the transcript at the White House's site, and was not surprised to read that "the state of our Union is strong", yet again. Well, if you say so, prez...
It looks as if last night's speech was the same old "stay tough, the union" speech we've heard at least 3 years in a row now. One of the scary things is, I've actually heard people who take this mentality to heart, saying things like "yeah, we'll take them (Iran) over, then we'll move onto the next country", and "Let them (Korea) try to fuck with us, we'll kick their ass too". At what point, exactly, did I become a citizen of The United Bullies of the World, anyway? It seems as though none of these zealots will stop complaining and threatening until the world is under US control, and even then, I'm sure they'll still have the itch to pick a fight.
It is said that...our government failed to connect the dots of the [9/11] conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack...I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America.
Couldn't connect the dots? What was the title of that report, Ms. Rice?
I also love how he implies, without saying so exactly, that 9/11 happened because we couldn't wiretap people, and worse, that it will happen again if he's not allowed to do what he wants.
If the whole "Tough Guy" tactic isn't enough for you, there is another classic strategy of control: Fear. I thnk I first learned about it when I was studying the propaganda of Nazi Germany.
Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others. Today, having come far in our own historical journey, we must decide: Will we turn back, or finish well?
Wow! Lincoln? MLK? As another friend of mine so sarcastically put, "He [Bush] is clearly the next Martin Luther King".
So, next time you want to move others to your way of thinking, remember this cue form Bush. All you have to do is start talking about famous and revered figures in our history, throw in a lame attempt at tying in something you did recently that is loosely related to the argument, at best, then present a dichotomous choice (and sometimes ultimatum) like this one here: "turn back" (clearly negative, you wussy) or "finish well" (clearly positive, as opposed to finishing poorly or not at all..."stay the course").
Why do I THINK at all when my government is so ready to do it for me? I had no idea that every decision the President needed to make was so easy and clear cut...what an easy job! And the bonus is (according to some heavy pushers of the Republican agenda / religion), the President is never wrong...
...but damn, does he talk tough.
8 comments:
Awesome Post. Easily one of your best.
Where to begin? Where to begin?
Why not at the beginning of the post... deconstruction stylee.
I believe your co-worker was referring to the fact that Bush WAS advancing some ideas traditionally associated with the left. On the financial shows the big news is that Bush, a known oil-man, admitted, "America is addicted to oil". I wish you had watched the address because the same information spoken live can leave one with a different, perhaps more accurate, impression that merely reading the text can. (But reading the transcript is just about as good.) In any event, perhaps you caught the clip on the news of him articulating America's "addiction". One could tell it was painful for him to admit. Democrats, perhaps correctly, later countered with, "President Bush saying we're addicted to oil is like Joe Camel lecturing us on the dangers of smoking." When I heard that though, I immediately thought it was somewhat lame as a critique. I mean, if you do go to the Philip Morris web site for example, they are, precisely, lecturing on the dangers of smoking (and then of course still selling cigarettes). Also, in a way this critique defies logical resolution. I come away with: President Bush has no credibility on this because he's an oil man and therefore what? We’re not addicted to oil? So, what seemed at first to be a biting critique, really only amounts to an utterly pointless statement.
The sentiment has been expressed that President Bush was at times sort of “stealing” some moves out of the Democrat’s playbook. This wasn’t all that surprising to me because Bush really is more of a centrist than a full on conservative (anyone elected to president really, would score near the center if they were to take one of those on-line “political compass” polls). At times, by expanding the size and/or scope of government, he certainly doesn’t fit the mold of traditional conservatives (who seek to do precisely the opposite). Here’s some of the moments that I guess could be considered “stolen “ from the democratic play book:
“Tonight I will set out a better path... an agenda that will raise standards of living and generate new jobs.”
“Our government has a responsibility to provide health care for the poor and the elderly.”
“We must confront the rising cost of [health] care, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship, and help people afford the insurance coverage they need.”
I guess Democrats have some sort of exclusive claim to those issues, but the speech, as you accurately went on to point out, was very much Bush, The Tough Guy.
I understand your concern over possibly over-stretching our military by attacking one country after the other but to call us bullies in inaccurate. To start, in reality, the leadership of North Korea is the real bully. According to the BBC since 1995 about 4 million North Koreans have perished due to famine because Kim Jung Ill would rather spend resources acquiring weaponry than feed his people. 4 million dead! Just from hunger. That’s approaching holocaust levels. Still think we’re the bad guys? The other country you mention, Iran, is about to become one the most infamous bully nations in the history of the world if they are allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. We’re talking about a country that’s stated policy is the annihilation of a race of people. The new wack-job commander of Iran has stated publicly that one of his main goals in life is to see to the genocide of the Jewish people. No but you’re right, were the big bad bullies…not. (Gees... where’s Michael Moore when you need him?).
It is not fear mongering to remind Americans of what should be “front burner” issues by accurately citing the perils of the world we live in. I suppose you think he should be more focused on domestic issues like social programs and what? Ignore international emergencies and burgeoning threats. I mean what is this? If Bush emphasizes the critical issues of security and defense he’s fear mongering. I guess he just shut up about that whole silly terrorist thing.
As for your dichotomy critique...
Yes, not all things are black and white. Believe me, we’ve heard enough Kerry lectures and defenses of his own statements to know everything has “nuance”. Everything I suppose has element of nuance but some questions and choices ARE black and white. Are you in favor of Killing all the Jews? Yes or no? There’s no god damn nuance. Do you believe targeting women and children is a legitimate and/or ethically appropriate form of political dissent? Yes or No? This goes to the fact that it is hard to get liberals to agree to many of these basic yes or no type dichotomies. It always easier to slide in the grey area-ed land of nuance rather than adopting a stance because there’s no way one can be proven wrong since an actual position has never been articulated or decided on. Try to ask a prominent democrat like Nancy Pelosi whether she is for or against “immediately withdrawal” of American forces in Iraq and you won’t get a clear answer. She would avoid the direct question and say something like I’m for “immediate re-deployment”. Which means what Mrs. Pelosi? Do we keep forces in Iraq or not? …. Your honor, would you please instruct the witness to answer the question. At first, Pelosi seemed like she was in favor of immediate withdrawal but then we got into this semantic hairsplitting of immediate “re-deployment”. In a way she was for withdrawal before she was against it. (hehehe)
And finally, the president is not infallible. He has made one mistake:
Appointing Harriet Myers was inexplicably dumb.
Karl Rove must have been absent that day.
Good stuff. Keep writing...
"So, what seemed at first to be a biting critique, really only amounts to an utterly pointless statement." -jmars
I find it telling that the one statement that you spent half your comment on ("Bush spoke like a liberal")was not a "biting critique" at all, though maybe that's what you saw because that's what you were looking for. The comment was not made, in fact, with any kind of sarcasm at all, and it's genuine tone piqued my interest enough that I went to read the transcript.
I have to learn to write better as you missed almost all of the points I was trying to make. This is why I don't post about politics on my blog: it encourages PWAs (Politicos with Agendae) to post. Sometimes it amazes me how easily, constantly, and creatively people can reationalize defenses to explain away the truths they deny and ignore what's really being said. It doesn't help that politics isn't exactly my strongest suit, either.
Denial, that's what is going on in this country. Each party is in denial of the fact that the other actually may have things to contribute. Each party is in denial that they themselves may not be infallible. Each party would rather try their damndest to destroy anything the other says or does in the name of trying to make them look bad. Nothing will satisfy either side short of a complete surrender of ideals by the other.
What ever happened to debate? Oh, right, you need to do things like listen and think rationally for that to happen, something most people in this country have forgotten (or never learned) how to do. We on a whole are too easily swayed by the FOXNews, NPRs, Roves and Kennedys of the world. I am by no means an expert, but I wish people would be less about talking points and more about substance. I DO know I feel stupid if I go into a voting booth without knowing something about the issues on the table. People should have to write an essay or give an oral presentation of why they vote the way they do, dammit.
This isn't Bush's fault. It's not Kerry's fault. This is something that's an exaggerated version of a piece of our human nature: "us vs. them". When you were a kid, maybe it was this side of the street vs. that side of the street. Later maybe it was our block vs. your block. Eventually we get to my neighborhood vs your neighborhood then my city vs your city. By the time we get to college, it's my region vs your region....it's a hop, skip and a jump fom there to get to my country vs your country, a mentality in which many in this country are very comfortable these days.
Anyway, most of what I was trying to do in the original post was talk about this current administration's tactics of spin, a word which has definitely taken on a negative connotation lately, an ironic testament to its pervasiveness. Anyone who says there is no spin (or claim to have a "no spin zone") is bananas. Ironically, jmars, my original post was partially inspired by a point YOU made to me last time we spoke: how one phrases things has such an impact on how people react to the statement / question at hand. Do you agree with me, OR NOT?
Each of the examples I pointed out illustrated in one way or another ways in which Bush's speech writers were trying to set an emotional stage for a statement the President was making, and the effect this spin is having on some of our country's population.
To start throwing out the names of Lincoln and MLK is a calculated move to frame the minds of the listeners, as is the subsequent question at the end of that paragraph, "Will we turn back, or finish well?". The subtle suggestion that the lack of no-permission-needed wiretapping will make for another 9/11 is, frankly, disturbing, though not entirely surprising. We've seen this administration use our country's fear of another 9/11 to their advantage before (last election, anyone?). I'm sorry you managed to miss that point and write a paragraph about how "not all things are black and white" (and attacking both Kerry and Pelosi in the process).
And when you "understand [my] concern over possibly over-stretching our military by attacking one country after the other..", you show that I could have been clearer yet again. I gave no opinion about military resources, but was rather making a point about how I see this bully mentality being reflected in MY everyday society. For the record, I'm NOT a fan of what either country seems to be up to.
I loved your "front burner issues" paragraph. You make a good point here, and it was the closest thing to a related point in the whole comment (hehe). But when you come out with unabated fishhooks like "I suppose you think he should be more focused on domestic issues like social programs and what?" you expose yourself for the Republican PWA you might not know you are. Either that or you just like stirring the shit.
Thankfully, I can delve into the new Survivor season tonight and forget about politics for a while (or, as you like to bait, "put my head into the sand").
At least FOXNews doesn't cover that show, forcing people to actually contribute for themselves in any conversation had about it.
Yo, You gotta calm down. Just because I didn't feel like addressing some issues doesn't mean points where missed. Frankly, I'm almost tapped out on debating the “whys and wherefores” of NSA Wiretapping. In the flurry of (blog) testimony I’ve been a part of recently at least one thing is clear: If you're for fighting an aggressive war on terror than you’re for the wiretapping of terrorists. If you're not you're not.
So in a way I skipped over issues that you brought up that I have written extensively on already. It was not a conscious effort to avoid or overlook valid points that may or may not have. (Therefore your whole premise of being angry is wrong possibly. Also, its always better to remain calm... measured... when writing a post, but I suppose any writing is worthwhile.)
I chose to misinterpret your complaint about invading one country after another for stylistic reasons. Not because I fail to comprehend the English language.
And I noticed how you would rather rail on about points I never addressed than address some of the harder questions that I raise. For example, Should terrorism be a "front burner" issue Or Not? (Just because pollsters use long explanations followed by an “Or not” question to generate certain results, All “or not” dichotomies are not rendered invalid.)
Clarification:
"So, what seemed at first to be a biting critique, really only amounts to an utterly pointless statement."
Was referring to the Joe Camel comment made by the dems not your speech analysis.
Ha...you always know how to make me laugh.
"I chose to misinterpret your complaint about invading one country after another for stylistic reasons." -jmars
Chose to misinterpret, eh? Sounds like you just wanted to find an outlet through which to bring up other, unrelated talking points, which is interesting, seeing as how you were trying to "deconstruct" what I wrote.
"And I noticed how you would rather rail on about points I never addressed than address some of the harder questions that I raise" -jmars
Hmmm...railing on about points never addressed. Now where on earth have I seen that before???
My whole first paragraph, actually was more like generally commentatry. I was quickly sharing some thoughts about the speech before I adressed anything you had written. I guess I set it up in an uclear manner/got sidetracked when I adressed the "addicted to oil" part of the speech (which does not directly relate to the initial posting of yours). So, the second paragraph is the beginning of my direct reaction to what you had written.
Fantastic.
I came across this article, which highlights and discusses one of the President's comments which is clearly NOT trying to appeal to liberals (nor sane conservatives, for that matter). WARNING: don't take it seriously; but I like the pic.
Post a Comment