Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
the dangers of framing
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Giuliani is at least aware that calling the perpetrators of 9/11 a "minor annoyance," as Futhark did and others here have done, is not politically useful. The Democrats are also aware, and we should be too. Giuliani is merely hyping up the rhetoric beyond even the Repug norm to stand out from the pack. He has no choice, because that is his only game---and the only game of all Repug candidates but Paul---because the only alternative to it is truth. And that would sink all of them but Paul and Nader.
It seems like a huge and strategic contradiction to me to complain about US imperialism and then call the blowback a minor annoyance. (Futhark, perhaps you are referring to Osama himself. In that case, I'd certainly agree, from a military standpoint.) But this is exactly the kind of talk that strengthens Republicans and weakens Democrats who might actually like to deal sensibly with that blowback.
There are other perspectives than the purely military one, as any liberal knows. There is the legal/criminal perspective, and the diplomatic/economic one. All of them are "serious" in the best sense. Since 1990, we've started down a new path of imperializing our relationship with the world, and historically, that path has never led to anything but more force, more insecurity, and finally moral, political, and actual bankruptcy. We need to both stop and reverse our movement down that path.
This goes back to the overriding issue of "seriousness." We don't need to fit the Right's definition of that word, but we do at least need to be serious about "seriousness." It's very real. It's like a metagame to the political game.
What I mean is that successful (nonstate) terrorist acts have a real political effect, and no politician can be expected to survive who doesn't have a plan to look "serious" should one happen again, whether "on his watch" or not. It doesn't matter whether the pol IS serious or not---it doesn't matter whether he or she has a better grip on short- and long-term US and global security. You've got to be able to look serious. You can't laugh and say "we need to proceed as though 9/11 were a regular criminal case." You can't say, "Ha-ha, the Bushies fucked up again."
We all know terrorist attacks are very unlikely; we know Iraq has made them more, not less, likely, etc., etc. But those are just facts, not arguments, not platforms, not strategies. The Repugs have a tried-and-true method of calling attention to themselves by exaggerating an external threat. If I were a professional campaign adviser to a Democrat, I would also look at ways of exaggerating the external threat. I'd point to administration incompetence just for starters, and then move toward addressing the fact that violence demonstrably begets violence. One sign of success (as well as of a friendly environment for such a campaign) would be a general disgust with violence: Blackwater, invasions, bomb-Iraners, all of it. It's out there and growing, but we see little sign of it so far in Washington, as Glenn has chronicled.
It's no wonder that so many Democrats have gone this route only so far, i.e., going along with the "Islamofascist" security threat, because it's ready-made and shields them to some degree. They've done OK with pointing out incompetence, but they could do better, and then they stop. I think most of them simply don't know what to do after that, to separate themselves from the administration's approach. They're not cowed, they just don't have any way of breaking through the Repug's "common-sense' arguments based on fear to communicate sweeping anti-imperialism to a vastly underinformed electorate that votes with a combination of its gut, genitals, and puckered sphincters. And further, not enough of them are uncomfortable enough with the current situation of huge corporate donations in exchange for maintenance of the "Washington foreign policy consensus" to make the effort.
In terms of being "tough-on-terror," the situation resembles a siege. The Repugs have the hill. The Dems are therefore relying on numbers and time, while the Repugs talk tough and keep a stiff upper lip and wave the flag. It's a risky strategy for the Dems, because they look weak, and there could be a reverse---an enemy army (Osama) could show up and break the siege, or the Dems could run out of will. But the numbers of the opposition are growing.
Still, I don't think anyone can break the Repug lock on the rhetoric of ultraviolence until they find a way of linking present imperialism with future blowback. It's a big job, I know. You can't just stand up and directly say "The US spent 20 years creating 9/11 and is now creating more." But it must be done.
Ironically, perhaps the best argument for that is 4 more years of hyper-Bush. Let's hope not.
-
@Chris Dowd
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're exactly right. And nothing could be less relevant to the actions on the political stage than the fact that it's all a lie. No one on the stage will ever be tested on anything but the fantasy. To be a star on the stage, you have to sing the numbers with only a little improvisation, and show lots of leg and teeth.