Ask Auntie Pinko
October 18, 2001

Dear Auntie Pinko,

In light of the American-initiated world anti-terrorism treaties, is it not necessary for America to rid itself of its own involvement with terrorist groups in order to effectively co-operate with the rest of the world?

Brenda

Boston, MA

Dear Brenda,

The unofficial motto of the Republican Party has for many years been "Pay attention to what I say, not to what I do." This philosophy is endemic in political culture, and Democrats are certainly not immune. But since Republicans have fallen into the habit of setting themselves up as moral arbiters on one hand, while rationalizing their own inconsistent behavior on the other, they seem to embrace this maxim in a very special way. And Auntie Pinko has to admit, it does seem to work pretty well for them-a reflection that says more of America's voters than of the politicians who employ this strategy.

Thus it should not surprise us that a Republican administration's first response to a world-shaking crisis would again rely on the public to accept simple and soothing sound bytes. "War on Terrorism" and "Coalition Against Terrorism" are examples of this. Of course the administration doesn't mean a "War" on all terrorists, Brenda you silly! Watch what they are doing, not what they are saying.

Of course, it's not quite as inspiring to proclaim a "War on Some Terrorism" or to mobilize a "Coalition Against Terrorists Who Make Us Mad." Someone in Mr. Bush's administration is smart enough to know that the goal most broadly supported by the American people (to effectively counter the threat of anti-U.S. terrorism by Muslim fundamentalist groups) simply can't be achieved unilaterally.

Well, you know, that must have presented quite a problem for Mr. Bush and his associates-since they had just spent the last nine months showing and telling America and the whole rest of the world, "We don't need other nations, and we don't have to listen to them, and we don't have to do anything just because they want us to" more or less. This made them enormously popular with their most loyal voters and supporters.

But now Mr. Bush's government is faced with a directive from the American people-including those loyal voters and supporters-that they simply can't ignore. And in order to achieve it, they are going to have to convince everyone that cooperation with other nations is not necessarily such a bad thing, after all-at least for now. Hence the rousing rhetorical devices.

Now you know, Brenda, Auntie Pinko, being such a flaming liberal and all, would probably have handled this situation by saying "our goal is to effectively counter the threat of anti-U.S. terrorism by Muslim fundamentalist groups," and trusting to the self-interest of other nations to see how cooperating with us could benefit them, as well. It might even work. But it wouldn't be glamorous and dynamic and inspiring, would it?

On the other hand, it would be easy to hold our government accountable for achieving such a clear, finite goal. And there would be no impertinent questions from people like you about why the U.S. continues to support many other varieties of terrorism in furtherance of our foreign policy goals.

So ask away, Brenda! Mr. Bush and his "let's do the easy thing" administration have left the door wide open for such questions. Frankly, I don't have much hope that this will finally alert the American voting public to the difference between Republican rhetoric and actual performance, but every little bit helps.

And thank you for asking Auntie Pinko!

View Auntie's Archive

Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?

Do political discussions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their endless rhetoric at you? Or are you a conservative who just can't understand those pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for everything! So ask away!