Letters to the Editor
kovie
Published Letters: 677
-
This dishonest framing is classic Clintonian triangulation
[Read the article: The complete myth driving our Iraq "debate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When Bill Clinton decided that the best way to combat Newt Gingrich and the GOP was to co-opt their ideas, policies and language, via Dick Morris's famous "triangulation" strategy, it became the party's primary, and in some cases only, means of political engagement. I.e. adopt the other side's ideas, policies and language, but in ways that adapt them to your side's goals, to sort of split the difference--you don't get everything that you wanted, but neither does the other side. And that is precisely what Dems are doing right now, by continually saying that they won't "defund the troops"--which is clearly meant to show that while they may be against this war, but not against the troops. Heaven forbid that.
In fact, I'm half convinced that this is really a subconcious, and perhaps conscious, reaction to the Swift Boat smears against Kerry in '04, which Dems are loath to risk incurring again. So all this talk about never "defunding the troops" might really just be political innoculation, via the strategy of triangulation, against such potential smears by the right. Think about that. The right has become so effective at attacking and frightening the left that it need only merely imply what kinds of horrible things might happen if the left did this or that, to get the left to not only back down, but prostrate itself before the right and public and proclaim that it is not all those terrible things that the right might conceivably accuse it of being.
The right has so thoroughly tamed, cowed and trained the left into adopting a permanent defensive posture that it no longer has to even do anything to perpetuate this except to occasionally have one of its surrogates growl or mumble something about "defeatist Dems" or "cut and run". And within seconds the likes of Durbin, Reid, Levin, and even Pelosi, will hold press conferences plaintively asserting that Dems will NEVER accept defeat or "cut and run". It's quite astonishing to see this phenomenon in action, ad nauseum, like clockwork--and, of course, depressing and discouraging. I don't know how this is going to change except via outside pressure by left-wing activists and the netroots. I.e. shame them into not being ashamed to speak the truth and stand up for what they supposedly believe in.
I do have one request, though, Glenn. Since we're on the topic of using innacurate, misleading and self-defeating language and frames, I really do object to the continued use of the word "war" to refer to what is really an occupation. I know that it sounds overly clever, but we won the war 4 years ago. What we've been in since is an occupation. Yes, we have been waging a low-grade war of attrition and counter-insurgency during this time, and been in the middle of a low-grade civil war. But these are all direct consequences of that occupation. To say that we are at war in Iraq or with Iraqis is like saying that Israel is at war with Palestinian fighters who attack its forces within the occupied territories (as opposed to terrorists who attacks its people within Israel proper or hurl missles at them). If US forces are in a war, it is a war that they perpetuate by remaining in and occupying Iraq.
I realize that unlawful occupation is, essentially, a warlike act, so that technically, we are "at war" in that sense. But it all stems from the occupation, which is both unlawful and unnecessary. So the war really follows from the occupation, not the other way around. We don't occupy Iraq because we are at war with it--we are at war with Iraq (or some of its citizens) because we occupy it. Just as Israel is by occupying the West Bank. We can easily end this "war" in Iraq by ending the occupation. But we cannot end the occupation by ending this "war".
I hope this doesn't sound too convoluted. I got up late and groggy and am still working on that second cup of coffee here...
-
@vudicarus
[Read the article: The complete myth driving our Iraq "debate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's an exchange that I really like from a West Wing episode that goes roughtly like this, that I think addresses your concern about our being excessively harsh on Dems:
Advisor 1: If we cave in on this bill, we'll look weak.
Advisor 2: If we cave in on this bill, we WILL be weak.
My point is that Dems' problem isn't that many of us accuse them of being weak, but rather that they actually ARE weak. This is not a situation in which perception creates reality, but rather one in which perception REFLECTS reality, and in doing so will hopefully eventually AFFECT reality, in a positive way. We're just trying to get them to stop being so weak, by pointing it out to them. It might hurt, but they're the ones making themselves look weak, by actually BEING weak, not us. It's tough love, in a nutshell.