The unforgiving minute

One of the things that makes American political discourse almost unworkable today--but nevertheless makes it a great spectator sport if you're so inclined--is contemporary conservatism's complete inability to accommodate irony. Crude sarcasm, yes. But irony--alas, no.

Here's William Bennett on the climate change conference:

It's amazing, you know -- the power of ideology to blind people to reality.

And he says this in the context of claiming that the entire global warming thing is a Marxist plot.

Breathtakingly unself-aware.

Minute's up.

Corrections

(Updated: dead video link fixed.)

Stock analysts call it a "correction" when a stock or an index dips significantly after a prolonged, generally upward trend.

In December 2006, five weeks after widespread Republican losses in the 2006 general election and his own firing, Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense, had his own sense of what a "correction" would be:

RUMSFELD: That's what I was just going to say. This President's pretty much a victim of success. We haven't had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it's not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing's in Europe, there's a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack.

(It's good to be reminded what a maimed soul Rumsfeld was, isn't it?)

Yes, Mr. Secretary, that's the problem with terrorists: You can't always count on them to attack us when it's politically useful for the Republican Party.

Fortunately, the Bush administration had the next best thing: The Homeland Security Advisory System, better known as the color-coded threat-level indicator. Let's review how that's worked out:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If your browser won't display the embedded version, click here.

I offer another example of a "correction:"

As Americans became increasingly and rightly cynical about the "threat-level-orange" tactics between 2003 and mid-2006, it has become less useful to the Bush administration as a distraction from revelations of its own mistakes, deceptions, and incompetence, or from events which display the increasing support of Americans for Democratic candidates and policies. The result has been a "correction" in the Bush admnistration's reliance on conveniently-timed threat warnings, following a generally-upward trend for four years.

In fact, the last time Homeland Security announced that the threat level was being raised to "High" (Orange) or "Severe" (Red) was August 10-14, 2006, in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections.

We can't account for this by saying that our continuing military presence in Iraq has curbed terrorism, since the opposite appears to be true: The failed state of Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism.

And we can't say that the Bush administration has abandoned the tactic of trumped-up fear of terrorism to protect itself politically, since Bush, Cheney, and their various enablers continue to publicly link Saddam to al Qaeda, speculate about which Democratic candidate bin Laden prefers, and so on.

And I suppose some brave soul might even advance the case that, following electoral defeat after defeat and saddled with the strongest disapproval by the American people in memory, the Bush administration has finally learned its lesson and realized that it's morally wrong, that it's not worth winning if the only way you can do it is to corrupt the very form of government you claim to be defending--if that brave soul wanted to be laughed out of the room.

No, I think we have to conclude that the Bush administration has discontinued its attempts at fear-by-threat-level for the same reason--the only reason--it ever abandons such disreputable tactics: It no longer works.

Think of it as a correction.


[Want to share/recommend this post to others? Click the Digg button below.]

Blaming you: An update on "stab-in-the-back myth" in America

Consider yourself warned.

The last time I blogged about Dolchstosslegende--the "stab-in-the-back myth" by which conservatives convince themselves, and anyone who'll believe them, that America's military and foreign policy reversals (think: the post-War rise of Stalin's Soviet Union, the "fall" of China, on through Vietnam) could not possibly be the result of military failure, but only of betrayal from within--there was only the beginning of an indication that it was going to be expanded to "explain" the failure of Bush's war on terror and his war in Iraq.

(I say "expanded," rather than "invented" or "revived," since it was only a week after the September 11th attacks that Andrew Sullivan wrote:

The middle part of the country -- the great red zone that voted for Bush -- is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead -- and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column. But by striking at the heart of New York City, the terrorists ensured that at least one deep segment of the country ill-disposed toward a new president is now the most passionate in his defense.

Since then, of course, in large part because he discovered that it was his own ox that was being gored, Sullivan has joined the majority of Americans, moving to opposition to the Iraq war and criticism of the Bush administration more generally. But he hasn't retracted the "fifth column" smear.)

But two years ago, the time of the last post on the topic, a lot of things hadn't hit the fan yet: Bush's popularity hadn't tanked and the Republicans hadn't lost control of Congress, making it somewhat more difficult (but obviously not impossible, unfortunately) for Bush to get his way on matters Iraq; Bush hadn't petulantly launched his "surge," the results of which appear more doubtful every day; allies hadn't begun disappearing, through troop withdrawals or defeat at the election box. And--here's the kicker--Americans had only begun to register their dissatisfaction with Bush's failed policies.

Military theorists from Sun Tsu to Carl von Clausewitz have pointed out that a nation's ability to wage war successfully depends upon government policy, military strategy, and popular support. But conservatives refuse to question their man's policies; nor will they consider the possibility that the military leadership deserves anything remotely resembling blame for the five-year mess in Iraq.

Guess who that leaves? Consider yourself warned.

From TomDisptach.com, Lt. Col. William J. Astore (Ret.) updates the "stab-in-the-back myth," measuring its increased popularity in the last two years:

Is an American version of this myth really emerging then? Let's listen in on a recent Jim Lehrer interview with Senator John McCain, who, while officially convinced that the President's surge plan in Iraq was working, couldn't seem to help talking about how we might yet lose. His remarks quickly took a disturbing turn as he pointed out that our Achilles' heel in Iraq is… well, we the people of the United States and our growing impatience with the war. And the historical analogy he employed was Vietnam, the catalyst for the deployment of the previous American Dolchstoßlegende.

Bush's war can't succeed without support, or at least tolerance, from the American people. But they--we--have made our rejection of the war clear for over a year now. And how is that fact shaping American politics today? Here's part of the answer:

Fear of being labeled "the enemy within" is already silently reshaping our politics as even decorated combat veterans like Congressman (and retired Marine Corps colonel) John Murtha are not immune from being smeared for criticizing the President's war. Politicians recognize that, in a campaign, it is well-nigh impossible to overcome charges of weakness and pusillanimity. Senator Hillary Clinton senses that she may be unelectable unless she argues for us to continue to fight the good fight in Iraq, albeit more intelligently. In fact, if you're looking for significant changes in troop levels or strategy there, better hunker in for Inauguration Day 2009 -- and then prepare to wait some more.

Astore concludes:

[C]onsider yourself warned. If we lose Iraq, you're to blame.

And even though the Iraq debacle will magically become your fault, don't expect Bush to give you a Presidential Medal of Freedom. Not after you betrayed your country.

(Image source.)

Conspiracy deficit

Right-wing Media Research Center (because the rightward tilt of the corporate media is always and everywhere under attack by communists and damned dirty hippies) offers up its 19th annual awards for what it considers the year's worst reporting.

In the Tin Foil Hat category for Crazy Conspiracy Theories, the winner--winner, mind you, meaning the rest weren't as good--is a 2006 CBS Evening News piece blandly mentioning the coincidence of Republicans with a fall election coming up and lower gas prices all over America.

That's it?? There are people out there right now claiming that the Condi-Dubya-Laura love triangle is ruining the Bush marriage, that Bush is planning to attack Iran to divert attention from having attacked Iraq, and that Cheney and bin Laden seem to have the same set of foreign policy talking points--and yet the silliest sounding theory they can pin on their political enemies to mock somehow involves Katie Couric (and anything)?

Ten years ago, these were the people claiming that Vince Foster was murdered to conceal his broken-off sexual relationship with Hilary Clinton whose husband Bill was a drug kingpin.

(Tip of the hat to Doctor Beyond, who asks, "Is this really the best they can do? I think the results of the last election has knocked the wind out of them. They weren't even trying.")