The last six years of neo-conservative dominance in American politics have moved this country closer to becoming an Orwellian fantasy and ever further from the ideals espoused by the Founding Fathers. In today’s GOP, there is no room for rational thought, open dialog, or compromise. This is the harmful legacy of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rice, Gonzales, and their legion of toadies in the House and Senate who are more concerned with the power of their party than with the well-being of the country. The GOP has taken the tragedy of the 9/11 attacks and simultaneously used them as justification for dozens of legislative decisions and as a stick with which to beat anyone who would dare question their actions and motives.
Sadly, it seems that even in the wake of the 2006 midterm elections, much of the mainstream media is unable to critique or see through the GOP’s unimaginative rhetoric and tactics. Although Democrats control both houses of Congress, they are still struggling to control the tone and topic of the dialog between the American people and the officials steering our destiny. The GOP has advanced its agenda by appealing to the most basic of human impulses: fear. If every situation, every debate, every situation is boiled down to a good/evil, us/them mentality–”you’re either with us or you’re against us,” “axis of evil,” “aid and comfort to the enemy,” ” [Our enemies] wonder about America’s commitment to [the GWOT]“–we are doomed to make unenlightened and harmful decisions. There are alternatives to fight and flight.
Fear and loathing in America
The half-truths, rumors, and lies used to instigate the war of choice in Iraq are well-documented in other tubes of the Internet, so I won’t go into detail here. Now we are told, “failure in Iraq is failure of the United States” (oh, and that’s Dick Cheney quoting Osama bin Laden). Apparently the GOP defines our own success and failure as it’s determined by our enemies (who were our “friends” 25 years ago, but nevermind that). If someone has a critique of the Iraq conflict, it’s shouted down and dismissed by a reflexive retort like “are you saying Saddam wasn’t evil?,” or the unsubstantiated and purely speculative, “but if we leave, they’ll attack us here!”
We’ve supposedly seen at least three different “turning points” in Iraq since this misadventure began. One more would complete the circuit, right? What exactly does “success” mean in terms of this conflict? What does “failure” mean? Rather than give honest thought to these tough questions, GOP leaders would rather let our enemies set those parameters. And if our enemies are the ones controlling the terms of the dialog, it’s an easy logical jump for the GOP to say, “obviously, we can’t let this happen, because that’s what our enemy believes.” We’re right back at the lazy, binary, good/evil choice that got us in this situation in the first place. Once we’re at that decision point, roll out the memories of 9/11, remind people that there are people in the world who don’t like America, sip Kool-aid, lather, rinse, repeat.
Pushing the (wrong) limits of foreign policy
The GOP’s lack of foresight and general inability to discern facts from desired facts has resulted in unnecessary diplomatic brinksmanship with North Korea and Iran. Following a pattern all too similar to the faulty intelligence and bellicose assumptions that led us into Iraq, the administration and its cronies successfully made a bad situation worse (DPRK) and gave the Iranian government the means to justify its legitimacy to a population that might otherwise question its handling of domestic and economic issues.
W and Co. further isolated Kim Jong-il back in 2002, claiming that the DPRK was trying to enrich uranium to develop “noo-kyoo-lur” weapons. Then, in 2006, the DPRK goes and tests plutonium warheads. Oops. The GOP thinking on this seems to be along the lines of, “Well, it’s a Clinton policy, so it must be flawed. Let’s simplify it: North Korea is bad; we don’t wanna talk to bad people. There, that was easy.” The policy started by Clinton in 1994 wasn’t ideal, to be sure, but it was a workable and better alternative to the neo-con approach.
Now we’re faced with a situation where the administration is publicly accusing top Iranian of supplying IEDs/EFPs to insurgents in Iraq. (Maybe we recognize them?) Sure, these weapons are being used in Iraq, but if an anonymous, off-the-record briefing is how the hawks want to break this flimsy accusation, forgive me for being skeptical. In the context of the botched Iraq and North Korean intelligence, I would hope that there would be more calls for solid evidence and more steps taken to prevent another “preventative war.” Given the record of this country’s leadership over the last six years, is it any wonder that the Iranians are refusing to increase the transparency of their nuclear program?
The GOP policy is to browbeat its opponents (domestic and foreign) into seeing the world from its lazy and misguided black-and-white perspective. It’s on the level of the cave-dwellers who, we’re told, “hate freedom.” If the opponent can’t make that logical leap, he’s either attacked as an enemy, or lambasted as weak and foolish. There’s no room in the GOP psyche for nuance, consideration of equally valid viewpoints, or tact balanced with decisive action. This way of thinking and acting is beneath us as a country, and it’s despicable that we’ve allowed these “leaders” to behave this way on our behalf with such impunity.
The 12 Angry Men Blog 
March 8, 2007 at 8:39 am
Well-said! I’ve often wondered how so many people can’t see through the most shallow of FUD campaigns or recognize hypocrisy which is so obvious after a short glance into the recent past.
March 8, 2007 at 9:42 am
Children
I’ve come to the realization that the majority of thought from the Neocons and the administration resembles the thought processes of an 8-yr-old. They’re afraid of everything and don’t respond to events as an adult would. Some one/thing scares them, they attack first and then overeact to the threat by coming up with ideas that don’t solve the problem, but just create more. Then, they rationalize it and convince more 8-yr-old’s that it’s the way to go. These ain’t the Goldwater Conservatives/Daddies. These are the Ann Coulter (let’s scare them about gays and liberals), Bill O’Reilly (let’s scare them about the evils of secularism), and George W. Bush (let’s scare them about brown people) Conservative children. I wonder if our grandchildren will be as embarrassed (as some of us) about how scared we were over things that wouldn’t scare a 10-yr-old as much??? Still, when you live in an 8-yr-old’s faith-based world, it’s hard to adjust to the adult, reality-based world. It might take them a few more decades to grow up.
March 8, 2007 at 11:00 am
FUD: It works in business, and it works in politics as well.
March 8, 2007 at 7:25 pm
For a satirical response, consider:
The Start of a New Democratic Era
(Though IMAO is an unabashedly right-wing site, in the In My World pieces all the stereotypes are true: Bush is an idiot, Condi is scheming to takeover the world, Republicans are racist, Democrats live in a fantasy world of peace and happiness, etc.)
May 14, 2007 at 7:04 pm
To all of you who seem to be “scared” of nothing except the idea that there may be a God,which of course would mean you would have to be held accountable for your lifestyle,
the definition of an irrational fear is a fear that has no real cause or reason. So to say that conservatives have an irrational fear when they are concerned over known terrorists is kind of silly considering the majority of liberals are scared of something that they don’t even believe exist. I for one cannot stand for an ideology that is bursting at the seams with hypocrisy. That is why I’m a conservative. I refuse to stand for liberals who think everyone should be inclusive of ALL ideas yet exclude the ideas that are contrary to their own. You keep talking about hypocrisy yet you refuse to look within.
Hedwig: Your right, I am scared. I’m scared of liberals (people who generally have questionable morals at best) running my country and making decisions that have to do with my family, my safety, and my freedom. I’m scared that they would be far more concerned with their own agendas and not for the well-being of the American people. What scares me about Gays and Lesbians is the rise of HIV, AIDS, and other STDS among this population. As for making more problems than solving them, did we cause or solve problems when got rid of a dictator that not only killed thousands of his own people but also the people of other countries? Did we cause or solve problems when the Iraqi people held their first successful election. (By the way, they just finished with their third successful one.)
Angry Overeducated Catholic: You think conservatives are just a bunch of idiots who are racist. You must not have been educated enough. Why would a group of racist people choose to put minority groups in some of the top positions in the country? (Which by the way, the Bush Administration has had the most racially diverse administration in the history of our nation.)
You may not agree with me, and that’s fine. However, before you tell me that I have the brain capacity of an 8-yr-old and that I am “beneath our country” hear me out. Liberals support the slaughter of thousands of innocent children every year in the name of “Choice”. Yet if a pregnant woman was in an auto accident and the unborn child died, the driver responsible for the accident would be the one charged with manslaughter for the death of the unborn child. Don’t tell me that’s not hypocrisy. Besides, what type of “leader” would support abortion? The type, namely liberals, that is concerned with living a free life and no accountability.(P.S. Abortion has murdered more innocent children since it was legalized in the Roe v. Wade case than the number of casualties in ALL of the wars America has been involved with combined.) Now that is truly despicable.
May 14, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Nice to see a “concerned high school student” take some interest in politics. You’ve got a lot of learning to do about politics, I’m afraid.
I’m surprised you would decry hypocrisy, and then cling to conservatism. As a devout Christian, I can ally myself with neither party. Christ told us to love one another, and not to live by eye for an eye, and warned us against harming our enemies. Yes the conservatives, who claim to be members of the religious right, shun Christ’s teachings on violence and death. Now I’m not arguing liberals are any better (I am neither a liberal nor a conservative), but to say conservatives don’t suffer from hypocrisy is blindness. Conservatives refuse to look within to their own hypocrisy as much as liberals do.
You also need to learn to read individuals political affiliation, as Angry Overeducated Catholic is VERY VERY conservative. Accusing him of other affiliations is quite silly 🙂
The biggest problem with your arguments is that behind them I can sense quite a bit of hate. This hate is blinding you to arguments to the contrary, and not allowing you to critique your own political party. It’s also the antithesis of Christian reasoning which is based on love, not hate.
May 15, 2007 at 4:17 pm
To expect either liberals or conservatives to be free from hypocrisy is unrealistic. Hypocrisy is simply failing to live up to one’s supposed principles, and it is, therefore, the tragic lot of all human beings. It is only really “dangerous” when it is wedded to a self-righteous pride which makes the hypocrite blind to his own hypocrisy and likely to seek out and blame in others what is most flawed in himself.
The proper counter of hypocrisy, and the pride that undergirds it, is humility. And both sides of the current political divide could do with a good dose of it.
The ability to laugh at ourselves and our own side is also key. Go back, Emily, and reread the link I presented. Realize that IMAO is run by a very conservative guy in Florida, FrankJ, and that the site I posted is a parody site which mocks everyone. Check out the great video of Bush roasting himself (with the help of the talented Steve Bridges):
http://www.greghughes.net/rant/BushRoastsBush.aspx
I agree with you that the GOP isn’t simply fearmongering when they point out that there are millions of people out there who would be happy to see a heaping pile of dead Americans. At the same time, some actions taken by the Administration to combat this threat are done more for how they look than how well they will work. Is this the Administration “fearmongering” or responding to the public’s own misunderstandings of the threat and how to deal with it?
A case for either can be made, but, as conservatives, we should never fall into the trap of thinking that our opponents are fools or children for disagreeing with us. Let’s leave that kind of thinking to the other side…
May 16, 2007 at 11:20 am
AOC wrote: “At the same time, some actions taken by the Administration to combat this threat are done more for how they look than how well they will work. Is this the Administration “fearmongering” or responding to the public’s own misunderstandings of the threat and how to deal with it?”
George Will used a fantastically concise term in a recent column: “moral pork barreling.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/11/AR2007051102133.html
Pork barreling is, of course, passing legislation that primarily benefits a narrow group, e.g., mohair producers (to name a ridiculous one) or ethanol producers (to name a less ridiculous one) but spreads the cost generally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel has a concise and accurate discussion.
Moral pork barreling—just as bad, possibly worse, in my book—involves passing lots of meaningless legislation that sounds good and scratches the moralistic itch of some pressure group or another, usually for electoral purposes. Will’s target was the tendency to pass hate crimes bills:
“Hate-crime laws are indignation gestures. Legislators federalize the criminal law in order to use it as a moral pork barrel to express theatrical empathy. They score points in the sentiment competition by conferring special government concern for more and more particular groups.”
Basically no one approves of hate crimes, of course (except perpetrators in their specific cases), but Will’s problem with these laws is that they are (a) probably unconstitutional Federally (justification is through the 14th Amendment, but it’s pretty thin in general), (b) most of the acts they criminalize are already illegal, and (c) they attempt to legislate thought and require juries to determine thought, which is, of course, impossible.
Moral pork barreling extends to a other activities of Congress and, must like ordinary pork barreling, has no partisan favorites—everybody likes it since all political parties in the USA (or anywhere else, but I think this is a particularly American disease of the body politic) has its share of morally outraged busybodies who, for the best of intentions, are ready to intervene for our own good all the time. The Terry Schiavo affair in 2005, in which Congress and the President involved themselves in a matter for which a court is specifically designated to deal with is another example. Law itself, passed by legislatures, is supposed to be general; courts handle the specifics. Much of the post-911 legislation and many of the activities since then have been of a similar flavor, which meant that lots of very necessary legislation got larded up with meaningless theatrics. Ditto for legislation post-Hurricane Katrina.
Electoral politics is a sordid, ugly affair much akin to making treaties, which Bismarck famously and unfairly compared to the manufacture of sausages (this makes sausage manufacture look bad). Unfortunately pork barreling of both kinds are a big part of electoral politics and the GOP under George W. Bush and his grand vizier Karl Rove is, first and foremost, an electoral machine which doesn’t understand governance and electioneering are different things. A while back now-departed DOJ consigliere Kyle Sampson had a revealing moment when asked whether he understood the distinction between policy and politics and said he didn’t believe there was one. I guess I can’t expect the highly partisan types to understand that the good of their party (whatever party it is) and the good of the country aren’t necessarily the same thing. But I can wish and vote against those who fail to keep the distinction in mind. (Naturally this means that most votes are votes against, not votes for.)
May 16, 2007 at 11:34 am
“Grand Vizier” someone has been playing MTW 🙂
Seriously however, placing all blame on those involved in ‘moral pork barreling’ is unjust, and unfair. Though one would wish that our leaders would possess a backbone on occasion, a greate rportion of blame rests on us, the voters, since if these sorts of tactics did not produce votes then they would not be doing them (political capitalism).
May 17, 2007 at 8:13 am
[“Grand Vizier” someone has been playing MTW :)]
No, it just seemed like a good epithet for Karl Rove. Honestly, I seriously dislike Karl, but clearly one has to respect his skills as an operative. That said, I think he’s poster child for why an operative makes for a bad, BAD choice in a position of policy responsibility.
[Seriously however, placing all blame on those involved in ‘moral pork barreling’ is unjust, and unfair. Though one would wish that our leaders would possess a backbone on occasion, a greate rportion of blame rests on us, the voters, since if these sorts of tactics did not produce votes then they would not be doing them (political capitalism).]
Oh, sure. Ultimately it’s OUR problem. They throw us raw red meat and we lap up the blood.
The issue I have with the strategy is that it’s often targeted at a fairly small group that’s nowhere near a substantial proportion of the population (hence the term pork barrel). Leadership means picking and choosing, realizing that sometimes what you DON’T do is as or more important than what you DO. Also, more often than you might think, policy entrepeneurs are the moving force behind throwing out the red meat; it’s not a bottom-up process.
September 28, 2014 at 4:03 pm
Heya exceptional blog! Does running a blog similar to this take a massive amount work?
I’ve virtually no understanding of computer programming however I had been hoping to start my own blog soon. Anyway,
should you have any ideas or techniques for new blog owners please share.
I know this is off subject but I just needed to ask. Thank you!