And the Bush-man cometh
This week we will be treated to a storm from the of Bush brigade on the NSA spying deal. Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the former head of NSA, will give a speech Monday, Alberto Gonzalez will take his turn on Tuesday, and all that will be followed by a visit by Bush to the NSA on Wendesday. I will be very interested to see what they have to say. My bet: 9/11.
Bush has used 9/11 for justification of every last detail of his "War on Terrorism," and frankly it's wearing a little thin. It still may work, however. A quote from Mitt Romney (found in the New York Times) illustrates why: "The eavesdropping is a big matter on the coasts for people who are inclined to dislike the president," Mr. Romney said. "The great majority of Americans think it is the president's first responsibility to protect the lives of the American citizens in an urgent setting where there is a threat of terrorism."
I find this to be a fascinating quote. I shall plumb it a little here. Essentially Mitt is saying that people living in the coastal zones, where the bulk of the US economy is located (57% of civilian income in 13% of the land area) and thus containing the most likely points of attack for terrorist organizations (experts predict continued terrorist focus on economic targets) are more concerned about the damage Bush is doing to the constitution than his fantasies about terrorists lurking around every corner. Shouldn't this tell us something?
The people most likely to be hurt directly by terrorism in this country are precisely the people who are least concerned about it. Strange, very strange.
So why does the rest of America continue to ignore the wisdom of there coastal brethren in favor of Bush's tired explainations? I think the answer lies in marketing. The Bush administration, through the hand of Karl Rove, has been expert at depicting every issue that might challange Bush's logic as black and white, as good against evil. But this is assertion, in itself, is nothing new and has been stated thousands of times before. The real question is why does this strategy work so well with middle America?
My belief is that this administration is taking advantage of a broad anti-intellectual movement within the US. This movement has, perhaps, been cultivated by the Ann Coulter's of world. But I believe it runs much deeper than that, and is more evidenced by the prevalence of Intelligent-Design than by New York Times reading latte-drinking liberal jokes. Unfortunately for those of us who are analytically inclined, nuanced arguments, no matter the message, may never reach this segment of society because they prfoundly distrust the form of our arguments.
How do we deal with this, when the way we speak leaves our arguments stillborn? Perhaps the answer lies in an as-yet-undefined hybrid between the straight-forward moralistic speech of the populist and the subtle mind of the intellectual. Perhaps we just need to use a bit more cunning, a baser form of intelligence.
Bush has used 9/11 for justification of every last detail of his "War on Terrorism," and frankly it's wearing a little thin. It still may work, however. A quote from Mitt Romney (found in the New York Times) illustrates why: "The eavesdropping is a big matter on the coasts for people who are inclined to dislike the president," Mr. Romney said. "The great majority of Americans think it is the president's first responsibility to protect the lives of the American citizens in an urgent setting where there is a threat of terrorism."
I find this to be a fascinating quote. I shall plumb it a little here. Essentially Mitt is saying that people living in the coastal zones, where the bulk of the US economy is located (57% of civilian income in 13% of the land area) and thus containing the most likely points of attack for terrorist organizations (experts predict continued terrorist focus on economic targets) are more concerned about the damage Bush is doing to the constitution than his fantasies about terrorists lurking around every corner. Shouldn't this tell us something?
The people most likely to be hurt directly by terrorism in this country are precisely the people who are least concerned about it. Strange, very strange.
So why does the rest of America continue to ignore the wisdom of there coastal brethren in favor of Bush's tired explainations? I think the answer lies in marketing. The Bush administration, through the hand of Karl Rove, has been expert at depicting every issue that might challange Bush's logic as black and white, as good against evil. But this is assertion, in itself, is nothing new and has been stated thousands of times before. The real question is why does this strategy work so well with middle America?
My belief is that this administration is taking advantage of a broad anti-intellectual movement within the US. This movement has, perhaps, been cultivated by the Ann Coulter's of world. But I believe it runs much deeper than that, and is more evidenced by the prevalence of Intelligent-Design than by New York Times reading latte-drinking liberal jokes. Unfortunately for those of us who are analytically inclined, nuanced arguments, no matter the message, may never reach this segment of society because they prfoundly distrust the form of our arguments.
How do we deal with this, when the way we speak leaves our arguments stillborn? Perhaps the answer lies in an as-yet-undefined hybrid between the straight-forward moralistic speech of the populist and the subtle mind of the intellectual. Perhaps we just need to use a bit more cunning, a baser form of intelligence.
posted by Metatree at 2:32 AM
2 Comments:
One thing we can do is leave off with the jokes about how stupid, uneducated, and/or uncultured hicks, people with mullets, and bible-thumping republicans are.
Not responding to something on this blog; just general tendencies in our circles.
More constructively, find good ways to work together with them folks. Redwood Summer was a good example -- Judi Bari got EF! and many loggers trusting eachother. I heard indications that the current anti-mountaintop removal movement involved cooperation and support between city-dwelling kids and poor working-class folks in the hills.
I fully agree. If I implied that people in middle America were stupid that was not my intent. In fact I think that people in this country are generally very intelligent. My intent was more to point out that the language we as liberals use, including myself, is problematic. It allows us to be very self-congratulatory, but doesn't actually get through to people.
And bringing up Judi Bari, is an excellent case in point of an activist who could speak to loggers and other workers in ways that made sense to them, and got results!
Post a Comment
<< Home