How Liberals Play Into Karl Rove's Hands

[papau]

http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=w060206&s=groopman020706

"Republicans have a post-9/11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview."

HOW LIBERALS PLAY INTO KARL ROVE'S HANDS.

Opposition Party

by Steven Groopman


<snip> A packed house of 100 or so viewers huddled around a few plasma screen TVs to watch the address. Early on, when Bush invoked September 11, the audience let out a loud groan and snickered. Seconds later, the president mentioned the word "freedom" for the first time. A bell rang, and the audience laughed; then Bush said the words "terror" and "weapons of mass destruction" and bells rang again, followed by more laughter. This ritual was repeated throughout the speech whenever Bush uttered any of these words or phrases.

This made me wonder: Why the visceral reaction to these particular formulations? The speech contained plenty of lines worthy of ridicule, and Bush certainly uses his share of dishonest conservative catchphrases ("activist judges" for instance). But spreading freedom around the world is--or should be--a paramount goal of liberalism. Meanwhile, terrorism remains a real threat to America, and a source of continuing death and destruction the world over. As for "weapons of mass destruction": A fanatical regime in Iran with a history of sponsoring terrorism and a stated desire to see Israel "wiped off the map" is well on its way to having such weapons. This is not an invention of the Republican imagination; it is reality. Why, then, laugh at Bush's warning that "Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek"--get ready for that bell to ring--"weapons of mass destruction"?

To be sure, there is a compelling argument that Bush overuses these words, or uses them to justify unwise policies. "Terror" and "weapons of mass destruction" can be invoked effectively and cynically to raise levels of public fear and alarm. And certainly Bush has, in practice, proven less than fully committed to his stated desire to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world. But if liberals disagree with Bush's means, they can still remain sympathetic to his ends. Even the most vociferous critic of the Iraq war, or the most zealous opponent of domestic wiretapping, should agree that preventing terror, denying nuclear weapons to dictatorships, and opposing tyranny are worthy goals.

<snip> The point is bigger than just one gathering at a liberal organization. In the years since September 11, many liberals seem to have concluded that you're not really opposing Bush's means unless you also scorn his stated ends. That's too bad. Liberals have no chance of winning the national security debate if they dismiss its premises. I think most liberals recognize this, but some are so disgusted with the current administration that they feel compelled to oppose--and to mock--anything with Bush's name on it. And any Democrats, like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, who oppose the Bush administration yet decline to scoff at the notion that America ought to stand for the spread of human freedom are liable to be labeled weak, neoconservative, or traitorous to their own cause.

This only stifles the possibility of a serious liberal alternative to Bush's policies. As long as Democrats are required by their base to ridicule Bush's ends rather than his means, they will have lost the debate over foreign policy before it even starts. Indeed, despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, recent polling shows that Americans still trust Republicans more than Democrats on national security. <snip>

[Mythsaje]

1. Idiot...

If the stated ends are a blatant lie and impossible to achieve, one can only mock and criticize them. You can't spread Democracy with a gun, and you can't spread freedom by curtailing it at home.

Talk about clueless...

[stepnw1f]

2. Spoken Like a Sycophantic Dweeb!

Rove is sure brilliant... just look at the mess he's made and the trouble he's in.

[DemInDistress]

3. well bush is a liar and a M-U-R-D-E-R-E-R...

AND I SPREAD THAT AROUND AS OFTEN AS I CAN...911 was indeed an inside job

[400Years]

4. this article is total bullshit and here is why

it assumes that bush is actually trying to spread democracy when he isn't.
he is doing everything he can to destroy democracy at home and establish a corporatocracy in iraq as well as across the rest of the world.

[leveymg]

5. This is a meme-of-the-day. It matches the DLC talking points word4word

Eat my shorts.

[leftstreet]

6. Dems like Jack Murtha can't get any corporate media coverage

He's certainly not "weak" on national security. He's got a Resolution for moving forward in the War on Terror. But the corporate media won't let "liberal" OR "conservative" voters discuss it around their dinner tables.

[varkam]

7. Interesting...

Even the most vociferous critic of the Iraq war, or the most zealous opponent of domestic wiretapping, should agree that preventing terror, denying nuclear weapons to dictatorships, and opposing tyranny are worthy goals.

I thought that this was an especially interesting point of this article. I completely agree with it's spirit. I know I certainly don't want dictatorships to have nukes. I don't want anyone else to die in a suicide bombing. I think freedom and autonomy are self-evident human rights.

But I think if the past few years have shown me anything, it's that the Bush administration is artful at framing the discussion in such a way that makes dissenters sound like sore losers. Very many of Bush's "ends" are wide open to interpretation (e.g. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter), yet him and his team are very good at defining the boundaries of the debate.

To use a recent example, the domestic spying program (or as in true Orwellian fashion, the terror surveillance program) has been cited as a program that protects Americans. That is how Bush et. al. are attempting to frame the debate, whereas other individuals might see it as an encroachment on civil liberties. But dare not speak out against it, I mean, do you really want terrorists to strike again?

[400Years]

8. Karimov of Uzbekistan, Bush loves this little dictator

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm

[HereSince1628]

9. You know, the DLC attacks the Dems more than the Greens do.

I really am tired of the fiction that the DLC is actually in the SAME party as we are.

I understand and accept that a loose coalition exists between two parties, but it's getting very close to the time to hold separate conventions and nominate separate candidates.

[Warpy]

10. Steven needs to get a grip, get a life, and get a more congenial

party, like the GOP, maybe. He's the reason 51% of the electorate has been totally turned off to the possibility that the Democrats might accomplish any positive change to this country and why they stay home in front of the tube on election day instead of voting.

Any Democrat who has stuck his head up and his neck out on economic or foreign policy issues and offered much of an alternative has seen people like Steven purse their lips and look down their long blue noses and tut-tut him to death for not following the party line, which seems to be to rubberstamp everything the boy king wants and tsk-tsk at any Democrats who listen to the platitudes and buzzwords and spend an evening laughing at the fool uttering them because they know what is behind them.

People like Steven are the problem, not the solution. They just don't get the rest of us at all.

[orwell]

11. I am a liberal...

...and I don't want to "spread democracy".

Those "noble goals" have delivered death and mayhem to millions.

How about getting our nose out of everyone else's business. That is liberalism. Liberalism means allowing others the liberty to structure their own societies/cultures as they see fit.

As far as weapons of mass destruction: We are the world's champs.

Who has soldiers in bases in almost 3/4 of the world's countries? Russia? China? It is us!

Who spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined?

Open your eyes clowntown.

The "enemy of freedom" is us.

[yurbud]

12. What motive would Iran have to use nukes against Israel or US?

Last I read, Israel has about 200 warheads. We have 10,000.

Iran would be lucky to get one mushroom cloud here, and before it cleared, we would have wiped Iran off the map.

If they gave a nuke to a terrorist group that denotated it here, the result would be the same.

If anyone gave a nuke to a terrorist group that denoated it here, the result would be the same (we would invade Iran).

You have to get your head out of your ass on this.

How is it our leaders scare us with these tiny nations again and again when we have the most powerful military in the world, and would be impossible to occupy even if we had minimal defenses? China has a zillionth the military spending we do and can't project militarily beyond their own shores, yet they are in no danger of being invaded--it would be an impossible guerrilla war occupation.

If we can't occupy Iraq, why do you think someone would try to do the same to us?

Also, both Iraq and Iran sell oil, and we are the biggest consumer. If we are an addict, why would the dealer kill the biggest customer?

Jesus Christ, I can't believe someone is still peddling this scare mongering shit.

After we kill all the Arabs, maybe the Bushies will claim we need to spend a trillion dollars to defend ourselves from bums and winos.