Economic and political analysis-Window on culture-Media criticism

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Beginning of The End

Lamont's victory demonstrates the beginning of the end of the rise of the so-called Conservatives.

A vote against Lieberman was a vote against the Iraq War. The 61% disapproval ranking against Bush's handling of Iraq has opened a nascent political movement, motivated by "righteous indignation" or "moderate rage."

Watergate and Vietnam were followed by a swinging of the pendulum back to the left. It took better than a decade before conservatives under Reagan reignited their base, deflated as it had been by Vietnam and Watergate.

To energize the nationalistic urgings of their base--massaged by Reagan's rightward foreign policy as they had been--the Right ritually turns to war. To fend off criticism of the military failure that follow, they attack the inadequacy of a less forceful response; first, by tarring with the broadest brush any alternative to stay the course and second, by overinflating the nature of the threat, just like Goering, who said:
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

The neo-con architects of US policy in the Mideast are experts on Nazi doctrine, believing as they that democracies must resort to extreme measures to prevent the rise of dictatorships, so it's no surprise this approach would be trotted forth once again. Agitprop spinning--called propaganda in the Nazi's day--had successfully deluded the German people into believing there had been no alternative to war. Coincidentally the Nazi invasion of Poland had been considered pre-emptive, in the same way the neo-cons excused the war on Iraq--justified in stopping the spread of terror and WMD. The neo-cons have launched the US into open ended, land war in Asia with a undefined enemy. Their motivation appears to be to support the policies of the State of Israel alongside our own.

Unfortunately for them, militarism is failing and their foreign policy with them. The outcome of Israeli military aggression is appearing to be the same as the Iraqi adventure: greater strength for fundamentalist enemy and less popular support for US allies in the region, leading to coups and possible regime change held back only by authoritarian measures.

The Bush regime seems destined for crashing on the rocks of the Middle East. They are by no means the first. Some of us might not miss their twisted policy vision unfolding disasterously as it is, regardless of the rhetoric. Still others in more moderate positions must see not only the failure of leadership, but the greater connotation for US foreign policy into the future--a much-less-influential position of authority, with reduced credibility in the region.

Odd how the Conservatives (I choose to use capital "C" to distinguish from the traditional definition of the word) blame weakness and a "pre 9/11 mindset" on the preceding Clinton era, as if someone else were to blame for their inability to find success or Bin Laden.

Politically convenient, such tactics really do demean the vaunted Conservatives. As we see the "security advantage" diminish--now only 7% more of the population believes Republicans would do a better job on the War on Terror. Considering the War on Terror is the creation of a bipartisan "War Party," the business of who is believing who really doesn't matter to me. Any public so readily fooled deserves neither peace nor security. If the pendulum is in fact swinging back, it won't matter who gets labelled what, or by whom.

This is the freight train roaring down the political tracks, the 800 pound gorilla in the china shop War-makers from both parties don't want the public to hear. Unfortunately, no amount of spin can really disguise the churning bloodbath US and Israeli militancy has created in the increasingly unstable Middle East.

There are limits to even the public's vulnerability to spin. Media handlers liek Rove presume that no amount of spin is ever enough. Yet rhetoric, slopped on however thick--simply can't disguise the massive failure that Iraq has become. The President's unchanging support for the war, and his abject denial of the sane who want Rumsfeld gone, is destroying his Administration. Too stubborn to let go, his whole upside-down, mood-elevated approach is proving to be complete inadequate in dealing with the crisis we face.


Post a Comment

<< Home