It's like the classic Seinfeld episode in which Jerry makes an off-handed comment that changes George's life. George realizes that whatever he instinctual does is wrong, and therefore, instead of acting on his normal thoughts and feelings, he should do the opposite. He does so, and it changes his life.

If only our Versailles media were so wise!

So when they tell us how horrible the MoveOn "Betray Us" ad was, we can pretty much bank on it that the opposite is true--that it was devastatingly spot on.

After all, how else to get Versailles talking about betrayal? The country certainly has come to recognize betrayal. Versailles, not so much. How could they? After all, they are the betrayers.

George Lakoff has written a highly significant defense of the MoveOn Ad, "Whose Betrayal?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/whose-betrayal_b_64579.html

Among other things, Lakoff notes:

Bush took advantage of certain conventions of etiquette and politeness when he sent Petraeus to testify before Congress. Those conventions hold that one does not criticize the symbolic stand-in for the military, even when the uniform-wearing stand-in is on an overt political mission that is at the heart of the Administration's continuing betrayal of trust. Decorum can be put to political use, and Bush did just that.

Bush was using a familiar right-wing tactic: identifying himself with a military uniform and the stature of the military in general, when he had no military stature himself. Rudy Guiliani used the same tactic in his ad in Friday's NY Times: he put on military drag by associating himself with Petraeus' rank and role, hoping some of the stature of the military would rub off on him. The implicit message is an attack on MoveOn: in pointing out Petraeus' deception, MoveOn, so Giuliani implies, was being disrespectful of the military itself. This is a typical right-wing attack on progressives, and progressives shouldn't stand for it. They should not be allowed to hide behind the troops. The troops themselves have been betrayed. None of us wants to hear it, to know it, to acknowledge it. Least of all me. It disgusts me how the troops have been betrayed by people saying, "Support our troops." But it is true, and millions of us must start saying so. There are unacknowledged villains behind this carnage.

In a country that takes its freedoms seriously, freedom of speech must be maintained. Betrayal through deception is much worse than being impolite. Where tens of thousands of deaths and maimings are concerned, it is immoral not to point out betrayals when they are real. It is patriotic to root out betrayal on grand scale wherever it occurs.

The amazing thing is that Lakoff is describing a bedrock moral reality that the American people have somehow retained, despite being constantly lied to by their Versailles "betters." This is why the subject of betrayal absolutely, positively cannot be discussed.

On a larger scale, I think the way to look at this is through the lens of Naomi Klein's new book that she discussed on Democracy Now! yesterday, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Klein's argument is basically a connect-the-dots affair, expanding on the central contradiction of the neoliberal era: Milton Friedman's precious "Freedom to Choose" had to be forced onto the Chilean people through a violent coup--one which also, incidentally, occured on 9/11--9/11/73. In fact, no one ever chose Friedman's "Freedom to Choose," it has always had to be imposed on people, as it was with the "shock therapy" for Russia just after the fall of the Soviet Union. "Shock and Awe" comes from the same line of thinking, Klein argues. She draws a direct parallel between how these policies are imposed and the logic of "shock therapy," which historically is part of the roots of modern torture doctrine, via CIA experiments in shock therapy, primarily carried out in Canada in the 1950s and 60s.

I bring Klein's book up here for three reasons: (1) She stresses that shock is intended to create a regressed condition of defenselessness and vulnerability, in which that which one would normally fight to preserve is relenquished, so that, in effect, a new identity can be imposed. ("Birth pangs of a new Middle East," anyone?) (2) She stresses that shock wears off with time. (3) It seems obvious to me that the Versailles Dems have been overwhelmed by conservative shock and awe. Many are still reeling from the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, and those who aren't are still reeling from 9/11. Meanwhile, back in America, those shocks have worn off.

And thus, we have a Democratic Party political leadership which is fundamentally at odds with it's base constituency, and even a clear majority of the American people as a whole--not just on matters of policy, or political will, but in terms of basic orientation and sense of identity. The hysterical Versailles liberals and Democrats who joined in the attack on MoveOn are products of conservative shock and awe, who accept the basic rightwing framing of things. They disagree 180 degrees with Lakoff's observation, "Betrayal through deception is much worse than being impolite." They are entirely submissive to codes of deference, comity, politeness, etc., which conservatives mock at every turn, even while insisting on them.

The term "Stockholm Syndrome" is not inappropriate to describe the mindset of the Versailles Dems, and Klein illuminates the larger landscape in which they have been taken hostage.

One thing's for certain: in fighting an enemy, you do not take directions from a leadership that's been taken hostage.