Yeah, politics again
There is a lot of crosstalk and miscommunication going on in regard to Bush and his critics. Here is what the problem seems to be: The critics think Bush is stubborn and deluded, while Bush seems relatively at peace with himself.
This is because Bush believes he is doing what most of us do most days: We don't make up what we want to do, we carry out policy. Like the soldiers in Iraq who say "We've got a job to do": bless 'em, they mostly are not defending or arguing a policy; they admit they are under constraint and are doing what they are told to do. They are not saying that they are bringing the benefits of the American empire to Iraq and Afghanistan; they may say they are bringing democracy, but that does not sound too brutal and it is not their main point.
Similarly, Bush is carrying out a policy. He may have said he is the "decider", but that is not his focus. Thus, while his opponents use arguments about what is going on to argue for a change in policy, Bush already has the policy, and his arguments are merely trivia to justify it. Whether they make sense is not important to him since, regardless, he is carrying out a policy.
Bush may feel dissatisfied carrying out a pre-chosen policy, but he knows that is how America works, at least in his lifetime. He can look down on the childish assumptions of his opponents, which he knows are wrong: We don't make up our own policy -- what an absurd power vacuum that would mean! No, everyone -- government, business, established groups, lobby groups, organized labor, service groups, the public, etc. -- are all in place and doing their thing. For it to be otherwise would take a real, huge effort.
Carrying out a policy should be so familiar to us, just as watching what we say should be -- they are both our normal everyday behavior at work, and often elsewhere. Saying what we think, and expecting to participate or at least observe decisions in foreign policy, is something we want to have; but unfortunately, it is still out of reach, for us and for Bush. At least we can say what we think, but it has almost no effect. Although he should be, he is no freer at the office than we are.
So Bush is following a policy, like most of us. Have I missed something? Of course: if he is following a policy, where is it coming from? Did he, brilliant man that he is, make it up? Certainly not. It came from those who tell him what to do. Who are they? That is the most important political question. Or maybe it isn't, if we can't do anything about it. But at least so that our political discourse can be grounded on reality, we should know, and make it our business to know. Bush may never have been asked that question by a reporter, although he looked worried once when he thought he was about to be. We know the outline of who they are -- George Schultz, Felix Rohatyn, George Soros, are examples of point men for them. Beyond that we know that they are connected to High Finance, the Bank of England, Bilderbergers, etc. But that is not enough.
Equally important to knowing what they are doing, we need to note that they are not necessarly American, which has grave significance. Is America their friend? Only when it is doing what they want. Basically, America is an enemy -- the worst thing they could imagine happened back in 1781: a colony revolted, won, and became an exponent of anti-predator, anti-colonial goals -- and then ended up the world's only superpower! A dream come true for humanity, but the opposite for them. The US is thus always a threat, and must always be discredited. Here in the US we may not be very aware of this, but overseas the main political effect of the Iraq War is that the US is despised. It's like the good old Cold War all over again. And this is not just a simple reaction to America's apparent brutality and perversity; it is regularly promoted by political and media figures overseas. In short, in carrying out the designated Policy, Bush is betraying the nation he was sworn to protect, whether he knows it or not.
Bush may not be stupid, but his mind showed no interest in world politics until he became President at age 54. It was too busy enjoying partying, drugging, making deals, managing the Texas Rangers, etc. Like Clinton, he is a people person, but Clinton was also an idea person and Bush is not. Unlike Clinton, Bush apparently never studied international relations at university. He just has a different mind-set from a serious president. For his bosses, seeming stupid is not a bad thing -- indeed, anything can be turned around to their benefit. It means that he doesn't fully understand what is happening to him, so he doesn't have to lie. He can be sincere and appealing. Indeed, outside of the official Policy he can pursue whatever dreams he wants, and his values there have been quite good. He has promoted blacks to higher positions than ever before, and without a lot of chest-thumping; and now blacks are suddenly being accepted just like everyone else, partly as a result. Similarly, he has not personally demonized Muslims, even though his foreign policy has. In fact he seems to identify with the offbeat and unappreciated, whether Muslim or himself. He said before he was elected that he believes in a humble foreign policy, quite the opposite of what he has done, but again it has given it a more humane image. Indeed he could have been a Democrat were it not for the family tradition. (And Gore might well have "followed the Policy" just as Bush did, if he had become President, and as he did regarding the environment, doing very little, when he was Vice President.)
In contrast, Dick Cheney seems nasty. He pushed for war in Iraq and has pushed for it ever since. What kind of vicious individual is he? Not quite as vicious as he sounds -- he too is just following the Policy. He was given the job specs in 2000 and he accepted them. He said recently that he never sought the Vice Presidency, but someone offered it to him. Who? Certainly not Bush initially. Again, this is where our focus should be. An political operative who said some nice things about him eight years ago was queried recently by Bill Moyers. He responded that the Cheney today is not the Cheney he had known. Certainly not -- Cheney is following the Program, more than being himself.
What were Cheney and Bush told that made them willing to take such awful jobs? Did they really believe that terrorism was such a threat? Maybe they did, and then they settled into their jobs and all that went with them. They know that once they do they can't change their minds. President Johnson similarly went along with expanding the Vietnam War while expressing misgivings, and could do nothing about it until he chose to suddenly resign from running for reelection in 1968. Bush and Cheney are saved from that last possibility.
If the policy is war, what value is there in withdrawing our troops from Iraq? It merely means that war must be intensified in Afghanistan or begun elsewhere. And will a Democrat refuse to do this? Consider this: every President since 1980 who wasn't a Bush has been under brutal assault while in office: Reagan was literally within an inch of dying and making way for Bush senior; Clinton was actually impeached. Clearly the wiggle room is minimal. And every previous President since Eisenhower came to a bad end. So what is the point? Try to get the candidate that we like most killed? Meanwhile Bush knows that he is golden and that he will not be impeached -- that only happens to Presidents who stray off the reservation, so far. So he is staying the course, and glad he is a Bush.
Perhaps if we were to focus on the real issues: Who is running the show? Who is Bush & Cheney's boss? What is their policy? Do they want permanent war? (worse for our kids than the Social Security crisis.) What shall we do about it? -- then we might make a little progress away from the childish fantasyland that we inhabit now. Maybe other countries might be able to take action if we could not, or maybe we could make productive alliances. It is certainly dangerous -- maybe staying in our fantasy is more comfortable.
One great advantage of a wartime economy to our true enemies is that civil liberties can be trashed and greater power can flow to the President. This has already happened, although there doesn't seem to be as much fruit as might be expected. But, as was recently pointed out, the danger is not what has been done, but the precedent it will set for future Presidents. It seems that we are living in a temporary dream, and some future President, whether Republican or Democrat, will suddenly use the powers that Bush has granted himself but only used in a relatively small way. We need to be ready for this possibility too.
This may explain the seemingly insufficient results for all the effort made to put this country in crisis mode, especially if we view 9/11 as a secret US operation rather than a Muslim one. Or maybe Bush is gently resisting pressures, and so the outcome is not what one might expect. Alternatively it is a success, if one considers the huge financial expense. Either way, we the public are not doing it ourselves, but are being dragged along by the Policy. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid oppose impeachment of Bush and Cheney (although it could make her President!), which shows the power of the boss cabal, but we can at least seek to have that impeachment take place, as a message -- it has been pointed out -- that we oppose and do not accept the civil and military changes for the worse that have taken place under this Bush administration. That, and focusing on the boss cabal, may be reachable goals for us at this time.
There is a lot of crosstalk and miscommunication going on in regard to Bush and his critics. Here is what the problem seems to be: The critics think Bush is stubborn and deluded, while Bush seems relatively at peace with himself.
This is because Bush believes he is doing what most of us do most days: We don't make up what we want to do, we carry out policy. Like the soldiers in Iraq who say "We've got a job to do": bless 'em, they mostly are not defending or arguing a policy; they admit they are under constraint and are doing what they are told to do. They are not saying that they are bringing the benefits of the American empire to Iraq and Afghanistan; they may say they are bringing democracy, but that does not sound too brutal and it is not their main point.
Similarly, Bush is carrying out a policy. He may have said he is the "decider", but that is not his focus. Thus, while his opponents use arguments about what is going on to argue for a change in policy, Bush already has the policy, and his arguments are merely trivia to justify it. Whether they make sense is not important to him since, regardless, he is carrying out a policy.
Bush may feel dissatisfied carrying out a pre-chosen policy, but he knows that is how America works, at least in his lifetime. He can look down on the childish assumptions of his opponents, which he knows are wrong: We don't make up our own policy -- what an absurd power vacuum that would mean! No, everyone -- government, business, established groups, lobby groups, organized labor, service groups, the public, etc. -- are all in place and doing their thing. For it to be otherwise would take a real, huge effort.
Carrying out a policy should be so familiar to us, just as watching what we say should be -- they are both our normal everyday behavior at work, and often elsewhere. Saying what we think, and expecting to participate or at least observe decisions in foreign policy, is something we want to have; but unfortunately, it is still out of reach, for us and for Bush. At least we can say what we think, but it has almost no effect. Although he should be, he is no freer at the office than we are.
So Bush is following a policy, like most of us. Have I missed something? Of course: if he is following a policy, where is it coming from? Did he, brilliant man that he is, make it up? Certainly not. It came from those who tell him what to do. Who are they? That is the most important political question. Or maybe it isn't, if we can't do anything about it. But at least so that our political discourse can be grounded on reality, we should know, and make it our business to know. Bush may never have been asked that question by a reporter, although he looked worried once when he thought he was about to be. We know the outline of who they are -- George Schultz, Felix Rohatyn, George Soros, are examples of point men for them. Beyond that we know that they are connected to High Finance, the Bank of England, Bilderbergers, etc. But that is not enough.
Equally important to knowing what they are doing, we need to note that they are not necessarly American, which has grave significance. Is America their friend? Only when it is doing what they want. Basically, America is an enemy -- the worst thing they could imagine happened back in 1781: a colony revolted, won, and became an exponent of anti-predator, anti-colonial goals -- and then ended up the world's only superpower! A dream come true for humanity, but the opposite for them. The US is thus always a threat, and must always be discredited. Here in the US we may not be very aware of this, but overseas the main political effect of the Iraq War is that the US is despised. It's like the good old Cold War all over again. And this is not just a simple reaction to America's apparent brutality and perversity; it is regularly promoted by political and media figures overseas. In short, in carrying out the designated Policy, Bush is betraying the nation he was sworn to protect, whether he knows it or not.
Bush may not be stupid, but his mind showed no interest in world politics until he became President at age 54. It was too busy enjoying partying, drugging, making deals, managing the Texas Rangers, etc. Like Clinton, he is a people person, but Clinton was also an idea person and Bush is not. Unlike Clinton, Bush apparently never studied international relations at university. He just has a different mind-set from a serious president. For his bosses, seeming stupid is not a bad thing -- indeed, anything can be turned around to their benefit. It means that he doesn't fully understand what is happening to him, so he doesn't have to lie. He can be sincere and appealing. Indeed, outside of the official Policy he can pursue whatever dreams he wants, and his values there have been quite good. He has promoted blacks to higher positions than ever before, and without a lot of chest-thumping; and now blacks are suddenly being accepted just like everyone else, partly as a result. Similarly, he has not personally demonized Muslims, even though his foreign policy has. In fact he seems to identify with the offbeat and unappreciated, whether Muslim or himself. He said before he was elected that he believes in a humble foreign policy, quite the opposite of what he has done, but again it has given it a more humane image. Indeed he could have been a Democrat were it not for the family tradition. (And Gore might well have "followed the Policy" just as Bush did, if he had become President, and as he did regarding the environment, doing very little, when he was Vice President.)
In contrast, Dick Cheney seems nasty. He pushed for war in Iraq and has pushed for it ever since. What kind of vicious individual is he? Not quite as vicious as he sounds -- he too is just following the Policy. He was given the job specs in 2000 and he accepted them. He said recently that he never sought the Vice Presidency, but someone offered it to him. Who? Certainly not Bush initially. Again, this is where our focus should be. An political operative who said some nice things about him eight years ago was queried recently by Bill Moyers. He responded that the Cheney today is not the Cheney he had known. Certainly not -- Cheney is following the Program, more than being himself.
What were Cheney and Bush told that made them willing to take such awful jobs? Did they really believe that terrorism was such a threat? Maybe they did, and then they settled into their jobs and all that went with them. They know that once they do they can't change their minds. President Johnson similarly went along with expanding the Vietnam War while expressing misgivings, and could do nothing about it until he chose to suddenly resign from running for reelection in 1968. Bush and Cheney are saved from that last possibility.
If the policy is war, what value is there in withdrawing our troops from Iraq? It merely means that war must be intensified in Afghanistan or begun elsewhere. And will a Democrat refuse to do this? Consider this: every President since 1980 who wasn't a Bush has been under brutal assault while in office: Reagan was literally within an inch of dying and making way for Bush senior; Clinton was actually impeached. Clearly the wiggle room is minimal. And every previous President since Eisenhower came to a bad end. So what is the point? Try to get the candidate that we like most killed? Meanwhile Bush knows that he is golden and that he will not be impeached -- that only happens to Presidents who stray off the reservation, so far. So he is staying the course, and glad he is a Bush.
Perhaps if we were to focus on the real issues: Who is running the show? Who is Bush & Cheney's boss? What is their policy? Do they want permanent war? (worse for our kids than the Social Security crisis.) What shall we do about it? -- then we might make a little progress away from the childish fantasyland that we inhabit now. Maybe other countries might be able to take action if we could not, or maybe we could make productive alliances. It is certainly dangerous -- maybe staying in our fantasy is more comfortable.
One great advantage of a wartime economy to our true enemies is that civil liberties can be trashed and greater power can flow to the President. This has already happened, although there doesn't seem to be as much fruit as might be expected. But, as was recently pointed out, the danger is not what has been done, but the precedent it will set for future Presidents. It seems that we are living in a temporary dream, and some future President, whether Republican or Democrat, will suddenly use the powers that Bush has granted himself but only used in a relatively small way. We need to be ready for this possibility too.
This may explain the seemingly insufficient results for all the effort made to put this country in crisis mode, especially if we view 9/11 as a secret US operation rather than a Muslim one. Or maybe Bush is gently resisting pressures, and so the outcome is not what one might expect. Alternatively it is a success, if one considers the huge financial expense. Either way, we the public are not doing it ourselves, but are being dragged along by the Policy. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid oppose impeachment of Bush and Cheney (although it could make her President!), which shows the power of the boss cabal, but we can at least seek to have that impeachment take place, as a message -- it has been pointed out -- that we oppose and do not accept the civil and military changes for the worse that have taken place under this Bush administration. That, and focusing on the boss cabal, may be reachable goals for us at this time.
Labels: politics
posted by Thautycraft at 6:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home