Friday, October 22, 2004
Weasels
I hate to have this site be so idle getting so close to the election now, but I've been quite busy with all the moving lately. If anyone is feeling starved for anti-Bush rhetoric, there should be plenty on my archives to the left or elsewhere on the Internet(s).
I don't want to waste very much time on the Bush "Wolves" ad, or any of his other TV spots; I doubt that anyone reading this site is simple-minded enough to be scared by these ads into voting for Bush. In fact, the whole premise of the "Wolves" ad (other than the fear-mongering part), the idea that Kerry wanted to slash intelligence in the 90's, was already thoroughly debunked in this old post talking about how his nominee for head of the CIA, Porter Goss, favored similar cuts at the same time.
In case you still think John Kerry is incapable of fighting the war on terror as well or better than President Bush, I want you to read this Washington Post article. It simply adds to the pile of evidence that shows that would be difficult to botch the fight against terrorism any more severely than Bush already has.
I don't want to waste very much time on the Bush "Wolves" ad, or any of his other TV spots; I doubt that anyone reading this site is simple-minded enough to be scared by these ads into voting for Bush. In fact, the whole premise of the "Wolves" ad (other than the fear-mongering part), the idea that Kerry wanted to slash intelligence in the 90's, was already thoroughly debunked in this old post talking about how his nominee for head of the CIA, Porter Goss, favored similar cuts at the same time.
In case you still think John Kerry is incapable of fighting the war on terror as well or better than President Bush, I want you to read this Washington Post article. It simply adds to the pile of evidence that shows that would be difficult to botch the fight against terrorism any more severely than Bush already has.
Monday, October 18, 2004
A Word From The Reality-Based Community
All the moving and everything hasn't left me too much time to write much on here, but I wanted to mention something brought up in Ron Suskind's "Without A Doubt" article in yesterday's New York Times Magazine, because I think it cuts to the heart of one of the reasons why I think this election is so important. It's not just about the differences between Bush and Kerry on stem cells, or gay marriage, or Iraq, though those things are important. I believe one of the crucial issues in this campaign is truth and reality versus fiction. It's easy to sound hysterical complaining that the other side distorts the truth or inhabits a world of spin and fiction, but there's a specific bit of that article that lends weight to that argument, and I want the argument to be taken seriously. The entire article is a fascinating and frightening look into George W. Bush's consciousness, but I want to specifically quote this:
Part of the problem is the total disdain for facts and rational thought shown above. The article principally talks about the Bush administration's reliance on faith - both religious faith and faith in general. This partially explains their contempt for the "reality-based community"; true believers don't judge things by what their eyes see, they judge things by what their heart tells them. Unfortunately, they have a tendency to fall into open elevator shafts because they walk around with their eyes closed so much, but them's the breaks. Compounding this flaw is that when they do choose to deal with the real world, they tend to screw that up too. Iraq was part of their fantasy-land of empires creating their own realities, but when it came time to have a man on the ground in the "real world", they chose Ahmed Chalabi as their ambassador. Whoops.
The other part of the problem is that the reality they choose to see happens to be one based on raw power - exercising it and trying to obtain more of it. A good example of this is when Cheney infamously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Was he talking directly about fiscal policy? I don't think so, since Reagan only survived the deficits he helped create by raising taxes when necessary. The same goes for Dubya's dad. Reagan didn't prove that you can run deficits forever without ever raising taxes, since his deficits came at a time when the national debt was lower, and he made some effort to rein in the deficits. What I think Cheney was talking about was "Reagan proved voters don't care about deficits." In other words, you can raid the treasury and not pay a political price for it. That's what this administration cares about - not whether or not something makes sense or is right for the citizenry of the country, but whether or not an act is more or less likely to threaten their power.
A similar issue is the whole idea of campaigning on falsehoods. Working to enshrine discrimination against gays in the Constitution while crowing about how John Kerry attacked Dick Cheney's daughter by mentioning that she's a lesbian. Campaigning as a fiscal conservative while wreaking havoc on fiscal discipline. Touting our accomplishments in Iraq as we fail to provide security to even the Green Zone. Bush, Karl Rove and company are really testing the limits of truth and lies in this campaign in a way that will set a precedent for years to come. It's not really surprising given that we've already established that they create their own reality, apparently one where John Kerry fought alongside the Vietcong in 1969. If they can get away with some of the stuff that they're doing, it will be copied for years. If you can win by ignoring moderates and pandering to bigots and pretending that your candidacy is blessed by God, then moderation is a burden no longer on your shoulders. If you're not held accountable for the the disaster that is Iraq, then you can make the same mistakes again, worse than before, with no consequences. If you can blur the distinction between church and state, or between a free press and propaganda, or between dissent and treason, you can obliterate the distinction and make church=state, free press=propaganda, or dissent=treason.
I think a lot of people see this stuff and say, "Oh, that's just politics", or come to expect politicians to lie or be otherwise sleazy. The thing I think those people tend to overlook is that these tactics are evolutionary and can be stopped. If pandering to bigots results in more votes and a win, then it will be done again in the future. If it hurts a campaign, then it won't continue. If ignoring reality is successful, then reality will be ignored even more in 2008. If voters punish it in 2004 though, you won't see it in four years.
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.It's somewhat unbelievable that the people in charge of the country speak of the "reality-based community" as something to be scorned, and declare themselves free from it. What is this, the Matrix? They may think they create their own realities, but I'm living in the one they're screwing up. When history books document the rise and fall of the American empire, I'm sure that quote will be prominently placed.
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
Part of the problem is the total disdain for facts and rational thought shown above. The article principally talks about the Bush administration's reliance on faith - both religious faith and faith in general. This partially explains their contempt for the "reality-based community"; true believers don't judge things by what their eyes see, they judge things by what their heart tells them. Unfortunately, they have a tendency to fall into open elevator shafts because they walk around with their eyes closed so much, but them's the breaks. Compounding this flaw is that when they do choose to deal with the real world, they tend to screw that up too. Iraq was part of their fantasy-land of empires creating their own realities, but when it came time to have a man on the ground in the "real world", they chose Ahmed Chalabi as their ambassador. Whoops.
The other part of the problem is that the reality they choose to see happens to be one based on raw power - exercising it and trying to obtain more of it. A good example of this is when Cheney infamously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Was he talking directly about fiscal policy? I don't think so, since Reagan only survived the deficits he helped create by raising taxes when necessary. The same goes for Dubya's dad. Reagan didn't prove that you can run deficits forever without ever raising taxes, since his deficits came at a time when the national debt was lower, and he made some effort to rein in the deficits. What I think Cheney was talking about was "Reagan proved voters don't care about deficits." In other words, you can raid the treasury and not pay a political price for it. That's what this administration cares about - not whether or not something makes sense or is right for the citizenry of the country, but whether or not an act is more or less likely to threaten their power.
A similar issue is the whole idea of campaigning on falsehoods. Working to enshrine discrimination against gays in the Constitution while crowing about how John Kerry attacked Dick Cheney's daughter by mentioning that she's a lesbian. Campaigning as a fiscal conservative while wreaking havoc on fiscal discipline. Touting our accomplishments in Iraq as we fail to provide security to even the Green Zone. Bush, Karl Rove and company are really testing the limits of truth and lies in this campaign in a way that will set a precedent for years to come. It's not really surprising given that we've already established that they create their own reality, apparently one where John Kerry fought alongside the Vietcong in 1969. If they can get away with some of the stuff that they're doing, it will be copied for years. If you can win by ignoring moderates and pandering to bigots and pretending that your candidacy is blessed by God, then moderation is a burden no longer on your shoulders. If you're not held accountable for the the disaster that is Iraq, then you can make the same mistakes again, worse than before, with no consequences. If you can blur the distinction between church and state, or between a free press and propaganda, or between dissent and treason, you can obliterate the distinction and make church=state, free press=propaganda, or dissent=treason.
I think a lot of people see this stuff and say, "Oh, that's just politics", or come to expect politicians to lie or be otherwise sleazy. The thing I think those people tend to overlook is that these tactics are evolutionary and can be stopped. If pandering to bigots results in more votes and a win, then it will be done again in the future. If it hurts a campaign, then it won't continue. If ignoring reality is successful, then reality will be ignored even more in 2008. If voters punish it in 2004 though, you won't see it in four years.
