Thursday, September 02, 2004
Republican Convention Update 2
This is exactly the kind of arrogance I was talking about. I am referring to Zell Miller’s speech where he tears into Kerry for being weak on military issues, and tears into anyone who didn’t follow the lead of President Bush in supporting the War in Iraq. Miller's speech read like a conservative talk show rant; he managed to hit every half-truth and/or outright lie the war supporters have thrown out there. Gems like "Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending." Excuse me? I know exactly why Republicans hate Michael Moore so much; he is stealing their act! The gall to put such ideological bullshit as your KEYNOTE speech. Please, please America, can we choose the party of Obama over this crap?
Right right, this is supposed to be an analysis of the political implications of the speech. Well tough. Lets look at the point Miller was trying to get across. “Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator,” Miller rants. The United States, Miller argues, has always been the fighter for freedom, the Great Liberator of Europe in World War 2, of Eastern Europe (we liberated Eastern Europe?) of South Korea, of Vietnam…no wait wait not Vietnam. The Democrats taking a unconcilatory view of our troops and of the War on Terror is what, Miller claims, has caused him to abandon the Democratic Party.
And John Kerry is, not surprisingly, the greatest culprit of all! Having voted against a list of weapons systems, according to Miller, proves Kerry (who is a kin to those evil liberal entities the Kennedy family and Massachusetts,) is weak on defense, and lacks the backbone to view American forces for what they are, true liberators.
First of all, I am sick of people hating on Massachusetts, especially someone from Georgia, a state with ass-awful education, and a state that refuses to take the Confederate symbol off of its state flag. Fuck off Zell, your states most famous politician is Jimmy Carter. Would you take the Kennedys over him?
Second, I wonder whether or not the Republicans decision to portray this election as the reaffirmation of an anti-terrorist Crusade will work or not. I sure hope it doesn’t. That has been the consistent theme from Rudy, McCain, and Zell so far, that Bush is our messianic leader who will lead the United States to fulfill its destiny as the annihilators of evil in the world. This makes me simultaneously furious and nervous. It makes me furious because the Republicans (and I’ll include Zell in this equation, despite his claims he was "born a Democrat,") frame this Crusade in such a way that: 1) since their lofty goal of annihilating evil is so high, all those that question it are somehow Anti-American or weak, 2) It allows Bush to fight a war with no end goal or chance of final victory. How will we know when the War on Terror is over? When we have defeated Al Qaeda? When Osama is dead? When we have installed Democracies in every Middle Eastern country (that’s the one I think…) Could you please fucking tell me? 3) It allows the government to engage in fundamentally Un-American activities (see PATRIOT Act) by justifying them as part of the greater cause/crusade. All this for a threat that most certainly does not compare to the Nazis in freaking Europe. I don’t see millions of terrorists forming into an army and conquering half our allies. I don’t see terrorists moving nuclear missiles to Cuba. That’s not to say we don’t need to round up Al Qaeda, but can we keep some fucking perspective please.
It makes me nervous because our army is already stretched, and it’s my generation that’s going to take the losses. I am not fighting for this crusade.
It makes me nervous because we are ignoring the countries in East Asia that may actually prove a threat to the United States in the future in a misguided crusade to chase after a threat that we cant even quantify, against an enemy that only exists in the abstract. And I question this policy. And if you got a problem with that Zell, then tough. That doesnt make those who question the War on terror weak. It makes them smart. There is no strength in holding unwavering convictions no matter the circumstances, no matter the implications of one's actions, no matter the loss of life that occurs due to the political dogma of a group of leaders. That isnt strength. That's weakness. And foolish weakness at that.
And finally, it makes me nervous because part of me worries what will happen if politicians can win elections selling themselves around this idea of unwavering ideology and military empowerment, and what they will do if they get power for four more years. What is wrong with our populace? Can't we see what's going on? Or am I out of touch with what the majority of Americans believe is right? And if so how did that happen?
(One last note, are we going to hear some domestic policy issues at all?)
Right right, this is supposed to be an analysis of the political implications of the speech. Well tough. Lets look at the point Miller was trying to get across. “Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator,” Miller rants. The United States, Miller argues, has always been the fighter for freedom, the Great Liberator of Europe in World War 2, of Eastern Europe (we liberated Eastern Europe?) of South Korea, of Vietnam…no wait wait not Vietnam. The Democrats taking a unconcilatory view of our troops and of the War on Terror is what, Miller claims, has caused him to abandon the Democratic Party.
And John Kerry is, not surprisingly, the greatest culprit of all! Having voted against a list of weapons systems, according to Miller, proves Kerry (who is a kin to those evil liberal entities the Kennedy family and Massachusetts,) is weak on defense, and lacks the backbone to view American forces for what they are, true liberators.
First of all, I am sick of people hating on Massachusetts, especially someone from Georgia, a state with ass-awful education, and a state that refuses to take the Confederate symbol off of its state flag. Fuck off Zell, your states most famous politician is Jimmy Carter. Would you take the Kennedys over him?
Second, I wonder whether or not the Republicans decision to portray this election as the reaffirmation of an anti-terrorist Crusade will work or not. I sure hope it doesn’t. That has been the consistent theme from Rudy, McCain, and Zell so far, that Bush is our messianic leader who will lead the United States to fulfill its destiny as the annihilators of evil in the world. This makes me simultaneously furious and nervous. It makes me furious because the Republicans (and I’ll include Zell in this equation, despite his claims he was "born a Democrat,") frame this Crusade in such a way that: 1) since their lofty goal of annihilating evil is so high, all those that question it are somehow Anti-American or weak, 2) It allows Bush to fight a war with no end goal or chance of final victory. How will we know when the War on Terror is over? When we have defeated Al Qaeda? When Osama is dead? When we have installed Democracies in every Middle Eastern country (that’s the one I think…) Could you please fucking tell me? 3) It allows the government to engage in fundamentally Un-American activities (see PATRIOT Act) by justifying them as part of the greater cause/crusade. All this for a threat that most certainly does not compare to the Nazis in freaking Europe. I don’t see millions of terrorists forming into an army and conquering half our allies. I don’t see terrorists moving nuclear missiles to Cuba. That’s not to say we don’t need to round up Al Qaeda, but can we keep some fucking perspective please.
It makes me nervous because our army is already stretched, and it’s my generation that’s going to take the losses. I am not fighting for this crusade.
It makes me nervous because we are ignoring the countries in East Asia that may actually prove a threat to the United States in the future in a misguided crusade to chase after a threat that we cant even quantify, against an enemy that only exists in the abstract. And I question this policy. And if you got a problem with that Zell, then tough. That doesnt make those who question the War on terror weak. It makes them smart. There is no strength in holding unwavering convictions no matter the circumstances, no matter the implications of one's actions, no matter the loss of life that occurs due to the political dogma of a group of leaders. That isnt strength. That's weakness. And foolish weakness at that.
And finally, it makes me nervous because part of me worries what will happen if politicians can win elections selling themselves around this idea of unwavering ideology and military empowerment, and what they will do if they get power for four more years. What is wrong with our populace? Can't we see what's going on? Or am I out of touch with what the majority of Americans believe is right? And if so how did that happen?
(One last note, are we going to hear some domestic policy issues at all?)
# posted by Marmaniac @ 1:21 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Excellent post. To answer your question: "What is wrong with our populace? Can't we see what's going on?" After spending the past year working with roughly 5,000 soccer moms and NASCAR dads, I can say, emphatically, that the answer is NO. These people are basically scared shitless by the thought of terrorism and anything else that threatens to disrupt their happy, homogenous suburban lifestyles. Combine that with a sappy reverence for traditional, idealistic notions of "the American spirit," freedom, blah blah blah, and you get a massive group of people willing to ignore almost all nuances of the issues and follow G-Dub blindly. What I find especially ironic is that the states traditionally recognized as being at the highest risk for terror attacks (New York, Massachusetts, California...basically, densely-populated urban areas) will most likely vote Kerry, while said soccer moms in East Bumblefuck, Kansas will most likely vote Bush, because his "strong leadership" will "make America safer." Come on, folks...you don't need to re-elect this guy because (you think) it will reduce the likelihood of you being involved in a terrorist attack from .00000000001 to .0000000000001.
Post a Comment
<< Home
