Read other letters about this article

• Sunday, November 27, 2005 02:31 PM

  An interesting narrative

  Sidney Blumenthal does a nice job constructing a narrative arc around Cheney's career that seems plausible. Some of the letters I've read seem to walk blithely past the central contention, which is that Cheney et al have a certain view of political power, and how to concentrate and wield that power to the advantage of their particular agenda. It's not so much that Cheney is an evil genius, or Rove or Rumsfeld for that matter. It's simply that within a system of government such as ours (slow, deliberate, prone to direction shifts after elections, etc.), strong and ruthless ideologues can and will find ways to work behind the scenes, to resume their interrupted agendas, and, better, put systems in place that are not subject to the political fortunes of popular elections.

  In short, what is portrayed is a lack of faith, which, in many respects, mirrors that of evangelical Christians who, in seeking to institutionalize their faith in our laws, seem to evince nothing so much as their lack of faith that God will take care of everything in his final accounting. Cheneyites, let's call them, don't believe that our representative democracy will adequately address the challenges and opportunies before it. They've sought to create a shadow government immune to the caprice of the ballot box. I think this is why the two constituencies are natural allies. They each, in their own ways, are compelled to be agents of destinies deemed more important than existing institutions or etiquettes.

  I don't think most Democrats are falling back on the "evil genius hypothesis" so much as confounded by it. Why can we see these guys for what they are, but neither the MSM nor (until lately) a majority of voters can? Some tactics, belatedly, are being appropriated, like permanent local party organization. Crafting a coherent dialogue to counter the Cheneyite demeanor of the White House has so far proved elusive. We're told it's forthcoming. It is with those Democratic elites that I'm angry, the so-called campaign pros, and the candidates, who bear responsibility for selecting and sticking with them.

  But so far, a party united with certain wedge issues based on deep beliefs and a more cynical, realpolitik view of politics has outmaneuvered a party that is more like a herd of cats than anything else. Perhaps it's a sign of a deeper malaise: a real lack of core self-identity that could be, in turn, reduced to easily repeatable sound bites. And if you don't have a core identity (I've read several write, "I vote Democratic for woman's rights," rather than, "I'm a progressive because I believe in economic interventionism," or "a coherent compact regarding social justice and economic security" ... I think Democrats all largely support each other's cause within the cause, but don't really know what to call what it is they stand for on the big stage) you don't have brand identity. That's what it means when Kerry's detractors said "We don't know what he stands for," or, more recently, "They criticize, but what plan do they have?" Dean was popular because he had a clear, strong message and style that resonated with disaffected progressives. But what the Left itself stands for at this moment in history is the real question in play.

  Those clearly motivated by God's judgment or dark forces (that necessitate extraordinary countermeasures the US as a whole is too "weak" to sanction) have a lot simpler narrative to act and articulate than does the Left. And a lot more motivation to subordinate "naive" conceptions of government. The cautionary tale Blumenthal delivers is simply a description of the true opponent, its intent, focus, and animus.

  —kohoutek Read kohoutek's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel