mdpm99
03-21-2003, 05:07 AM
Greetings:
I wanted to share this with you, so here it goes:
There is a negative side to this country emerging. It is frightening me; it is giving me a big knot in my stomach that won't go away, even when Bush is gone and our pre-emptive attack on Iraq is long over. Something's rotten in our mass psyche. Moved by a misplaced sense of patriotism and "we must all stick together behind Bush"-ism, some people have gone so far as to boycott -- and, Nazi-style, burn -- music albums by the Dixie Chicks just because one of their singers mentioned that she wasn't all that proud of coming from the same state as Bush. On some message boards, cloaked in the safety of their anonymity, I hear anti-peace folks uttering the most venemous of sentiments. Dissent with Bush is called "treason"; dissenters are called "traitors," are told to "leave the country if you don't like it!"
My question is, how long has this negative side been here? Well, no, a better question is, what can we do about it? Is there anything to be done?
Let me backtrack a second. Part of the reason I think Bush is so far ahead of the peace cause in this country is because he has been preparing for this for a long time. A classified Pentagon document was leaked last year, revealing that detailed plans regarding this imminent attack on Iraq have been in the works for quite a lot longer than Bush would publicly admit. But Bush's preparation goes way beyond a pre-emptive planning of invasion tactics. His has also been a SELF-preparation, a careful construction of his public self to maintain the satisfaction of the American majority. Bush's words at press conferences, all his public statements, even his damn hairdo are minutely scripted, in order to ensure that his image/words/hairdo will appeal to the greatest possible number of Americans.
Sounds kind of funny put like that, but really there's nothing new with employing image consultants. Celebrities do it. Why not presidents? What IS new that the image-manipulation tactics can now be seen REALLY working in the political realm on a major scale. Bush has thus been able to tap into America's fears, its anxieties about terrorism, its simplistic myths of good vs evil, and has been able to spin them adeptly in his own favor. Well, he's had a long time to prepare.
Even his so-called failure at the U.N., that was planned. I mean, it was clear from the start that Bush was never interested in the advice or approval of the U.N. He wanted a failure of diplomacy so that he could proceed unfettered with his own plans. For a while we all played along, hoping that somehow events would digress from their predetermined course. No one was surprised when Bush gave up on the U.N. He sabotaged his own efforts.
This kind of manipulation of the public eye has to require a lot of cynicism on the manipulators' part -- and a lot of scary expertise.
That expertise -- combined with America's weakness for propaganda -- is precisely what is helping Bush get his way.
I'm not saying that Bush is really all that cynical or clever himself. He's a good actor, but I don't think he's pretending to be a nitwit. Even he wouldn't be a good enough actor to cover up this negative view of America, if he actually suscribed to the view himself. I think he has actually convinced himself of his own moral high ground, that he is only doing what is "just." But just because you don't believe in the public's gullibility doesn't mean you can't benefit from it.
Behind the scenes, George W. Bush has teams of experts helping him sculpt his propaganda and his policies. Those advisors and the ongoing script they write, without whom Bush would be adrift, and his true short-sightedness revealed for all the world to see -- they are the minds Americans are truly up against. Ultimately, the rightness or wrongness of their priorities will not determine their success (and this is where MY true cynicism kicks in). Their successes and failures have been and will continue to be determined by their knowledge of America's mass psyche, its fears, its myths, its weaknesses, its idealism.
Can our ideals hope to compete with the current administration's level of precalculation? (Will our well-intentioned yearning for Peace prevail over the nationally marketed, focus-group-tested, action-packed image of George W Bush TM?)
My own answer to this question would be both yes and no. On its own, idealism will NOT lead the way toward world peace, because (as we have been trying to convince Bush) world peace is not something you snap your fingers to make happen. It is a difficult and complex aim that requires much intelligent discussion and voluntary self-restraint. But ultimately, a society's desire for peace is always going to be the government's main motivating factor in moving toward peace. And that is what is lacking in America right now: a widespread desire for peace. So, as dissenters, I think we need to combine our own deep desire for peace with realistic, grounded strategies for enacting social transformation. In other words, we always need to know EXACTLY what we're doing, why we're doing it, and how best to explain ourselves in reasonable terms when the media rolls round to pick apart the movement for its own entertainment-related purposes. The rules that apply to Bush apply equally to the anti-war protests. It's all about preparation. It's about knowing the other side well.
But without our idealism and optimism, we might as well join Bush's team of advisors.
Anyway, here's my little vote of support for the so-called "traitors," the direct action folks, the first few grains of sand slipping into America's well-oiled war machine. It will take time and it will take effort, but somehow we will find a way to fix this, to return America to the safeguards of international diplomacy and deterrence.
Thanks for allowing me to share these thoughts, and thanks for listening.
Peace on Earth
[ March 21, 2003, 05:16 AM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]
I wanted to share this with you, so here it goes:
There is a negative side to this country emerging. It is frightening me; it is giving me a big knot in my stomach that won't go away, even when Bush is gone and our pre-emptive attack on Iraq is long over. Something's rotten in our mass psyche. Moved by a misplaced sense of patriotism and "we must all stick together behind Bush"-ism, some people have gone so far as to boycott -- and, Nazi-style, burn -- music albums by the Dixie Chicks just because one of their singers mentioned that she wasn't all that proud of coming from the same state as Bush. On some message boards, cloaked in the safety of their anonymity, I hear anti-peace folks uttering the most venemous of sentiments. Dissent with Bush is called "treason"; dissenters are called "traitors," are told to "leave the country if you don't like it!"
My question is, how long has this negative side been here? Well, no, a better question is, what can we do about it? Is there anything to be done?
Let me backtrack a second. Part of the reason I think Bush is so far ahead of the peace cause in this country is because he has been preparing for this for a long time. A classified Pentagon document was leaked last year, revealing that detailed plans regarding this imminent attack on Iraq have been in the works for quite a lot longer than Bush would publicly admit. But Bush's preparation goes way beyond a pre-emptive planning of invasion tactics. His has also been a SELF-preparation, a careful construction of his public self to maintain the satisfaction of the American majority. Bush's words at press conferences, all his public statements, even his damn hairdo are minutely scripted, in order to ensure that his image/words/hairdo will appeal to the greatest possible number of Americans.
Sounds kind of funny put like that, but really there's nothing new with employing image consultants. Celebrities do it. Why not presidents? What IS new that the image-manipulation tactics can now be seen REALLY working in the political realm on a major scale. Bush has thus been able to tap into America's fears, its anxieties about terrorism, its simplistic myths of good vs evil, and has been able to spin them adeptly in his own favor. Well, he's had a long time to prepare.
Even his so-called failure at the U.N., that was planned. I mean, it was clear from the start that Bush was never interested in the advice or approval of the U.N. He wanted a failure of diplomacy so that he could proceed unfettered with his own plans. For a while we all played along, hoping that somehow events would digress from their predetermined course. No one was surprised when Bush gave up on the U.N. He sabotaged his own efforts.
This kind of manipulation of the public eye has to require a lot of cynicism on the manipulators' part -- and a lot of scary expertise.
That expertise -- combined with America's weakness for propaganda -- is precisely what is helping Bush get his way.
I'm not saying that Bush is really all that cynical or clever himself. He's a good actor, but I don't think he's pretending to be a nitwit. Even he wouldn't be a good enough actor to cover up this negative view of America, if he actually suscribed to the view himself. I think he has actually convinced himself of his own moral high ground, that he is only doing what is "just." But just because you don't believe in the public's gullibility doesn't mean you can't benefit from it.
Behind the scenes, George W. Bush has teams of experts helping him sculpt his propaganda and his policies. Those advisors and the ongoing script they write, without whom Bush would be adrift, and his true short-sightedness revealed for all the world to see -- they are the minds Americans are truly up against. Ultimately, the rightness or wrongness of their priorities will not determine their success (and this is where MY true cynicism kicks in). Their successes and failures have been and will continue to be determined by their knowledge of America's mass psyche, its fears, its myths, its weaknesses, its idealism.
Can our ideals hope to compete with the current administration's level of precalculation? (Will our well-intentioned yearning for Peace prevail over the nationally marketed, focus-group-tested, action-packed image of George W Bush TM?)
My own answer to this question would be both yes and no. On its own, idealism will NOT lead the way toward world peace, because (as we have been trying to convince Bush) world peace is not something you snap your fingers to make happen. It is a difficult and complex aim that requires much intelligent discussion and voluntary self-restraint. But ultimately, a society's desire for peace is always going to be the government's main motivating factor in moving toward peace. And that is what is lacking in America right now: a widespread desire for peace. So, as dissenters, I think we need to combine our own deep desire for peace with realistic, grounded strategies for enacting social transformation. In other words, we always need to know EXACTLY what we're doing, why we're doing it, and how best to explain ourselves in reasonable terms when the media rolls round to pick apart the movement for its own entertainment-related purposes. The rules that apply to Bush apply equally to the anti-war protests. It's all about preparation. It's about knowing the other side well.
But without our idealism and optimism, we might as well join Bush's team of advisors.
Anyway, here's my little vote of support for the so-called "traitors," the direct action folks, the first few grains of sand slipping into America's well-oiled war machine. It will take time and it will take effort, but somehow we will find a way to fix this, to return America to the safeguards of international diplomacy and deterrence.
Thanks for allowing me to share these thoughts, and thanks for listening.
Peace on Earth
[ March 21, 2003, 05:16 AM: Message edited by: david mancuso ]