Bush over breakfast
is what I got oday as our great leader's news conference was broadcast on NPR. There are four things that strike me in retrospect:
1. He stumbled over "moderate" and "modern" governments in Middle East that would find succor in the victory of democracy. Not terribly significant, except that there may be a critical difference. In many ways, Saddam's government was fully modern -- secular and drawing in its rhetoric and ideology from right wing and left wing movements of the early twentieth century in Europe. One can be modern without being moderate. This is a big political conundrum of our times.
2. He stumbled over the word emergency and emergence with regard to democracy. Emergency democracy or emergent democracy? Can the first even exist, or is it an oxymoron: hasn't he thrown our own country into state after state of emergency precisely to foil democratic processes?
3. His use of the term "the enemy" evokes a powerful narrative -- every time he says "the enemy this" or "the enemy that" he stimulates some involuntary/unconscious part of the human psyche. To counter this, we must talk about the enemy as much as possible as well -- in order to steal his thunder. People who like to say "that they don't hate us" in the Middle East are trying to extirpate any notion of oppositionality and serves the same gods of propaganda as Bush and his cronies.
4. Other commentators will tell you that the account on the ground in Iraq absolutely contradicts Bush's version of things, but I heard on NPR that because there is no visible street demonstration, Bush has "gained traction" in defense of the war in Iraq. I'm afraid that this is simply untrue. I myself didn't show up to rallies because I honestly do not think that a pull out is something that I can rally for. In Vietnam, the withdrawal of US troops seemed an obvious thing to demand. The anti-war movement has not crystallized into a pro-democracy movement. I'm waiting for that to happen.
1. He stumbled over "moderate" and "modern" governments in Middle East that would find succor in the victory of democracy. Not terribly significant, except that there may be a critical difference. In many ways, Saddam's government was fully modern -- secular and drawing in its rhetoric and ideology from right wing and left wing movements of the early twentieth century in Europe. One can be modern without being moderate. This is a big political conundrum of our times.
2. He stumbled over the word emergency and emergence with regard to democracy. Emergency democracy or emergent democracy? Can the first even exist, or is it an oxymoron: hasn't he thrown our own country into state after state of emergency precisely to foil democratic processes?
3. His use of the term "the enemy" evokes a powerful narrative -- every time he says "the enemy this" or "the enemy that" he stimulates some involuntary/unconscious part of the human psyche. To counter this, we must talk about the enemy as much as possible as well -- in order to steal his thunder. People who like to say "that they don't hate us" in the Middle East are trying to extirpate any notion of oppositionality and serves the same gods of propaganda as Bush and his cronies.
4. Other commentators will tell you that the account on the ground in Iraq absolutely contradicts Bush's version of things, but I heard on NPR that because there is no visible street demonstration, Bush has "gained traction" in defense of the war in Iraq. I'm afraid that this is simply untrue. I myself didn't show up to rallies because I honestly do not think that a pull out is something that I can rally for. In Vietnam, the withdrawal of US troops seemed an obvious thing to demand. The anti-war movement has not crystallized into a pro-democracy movement. I'm waiting for that to happen.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home