Sheesh, I lie low for a day, and suddenly the blogiverse starts catching up with me. Specifically, an article by John Dickerson in Slate spawned agreement yesterday by Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias at Tapped that, as Matt puts it, "as much as Democrats want the 2006 elections to be all about corruption, the GOP is going to want them to be all about national security, and there's a very strong chance that they'll get their way."
A front-page diary at TPM Cafe notes further that hammering on Dubya's NSA invasion of privacy won't help, either:
A front-page diary at TPM Cafe notes further that hammering on Dubya's NSA invasion of privacy won't help, either:
This is a not a problem that can just be wished away by citing poll numbers or imagining the electorate to be more libertarian than it is.
This is a classic Lakoffian issue -- even if the average voter supports the position the Democrats take, they may prefer the values projected by the GOP take-no-prisoners approach.
This is a classic Lakoffian issue -- even if the average voter supports the position the Democrats take, they may prefer the values projected by the GOP take-no-prisoners approach.
Well, my friends, welcome to where I was three weeks ago:
It's obvious that the Bushites, cornered by their lies and lawbreaking, have fallen back to their first last line of defense: "We're doing whatever it takes to protect this country; anyone who disagrees with us is trying to get you blown up by terrorists."
The liberal blogiverse is doing its usual excellent job of dissecting the lies and lawbreaking ... but eventually, we're going to have to take on that war-on-terror narrative, aren't we? I mean, they're not going to stop until we make them pay for it.
The liberal blogiverse is doing its usual excellent job of dissecting the lies and lawbreaking ... but eventually, we're going to have to take on that war-on-terror narrative, aren't we? I mean, they're not going to stop until we make them pay for it.
The counterargument offered by Digby and Greg Sargent at Tapped is that the Iraq fiasco has diminished the power of this narrative, and Dems "should stick to their principles, especially on an issue as serious as combating unchecked executive power, and hope that the electorate has learned a thing or two about this administration in the past four years."
But to repeat myself from two weeks ago:
But to repeat myself from two weeks ago:
. . [a] "principled" objection to Shrub's trampling of individual privacy actually reinforces the consciously crafted image of a Strong Daddy who will stop at nothing (even the Constitution!) when it comes to defending the national family.
. . . Republicans are going to keep beating Democrats with the national-security stick until we grab it out of their hands and break it.
. . . Republicans are going to keep beating Democrats with the national-security stick until we grab it out of their hands and break it.
Why not do it now?
I won't be melodramatic and claim that Democrats are doomed to lose in 2006 and beyond unless they do things my way. But making people choose between preserving the Constitution and being protected -- as a Daily Kos post today explicitly suggests -- seems like a good way to deter as many people as possible from choosing our side.
Rather than continuing to bring our logical and principled knives to a gut-level gun fight, why not make it easier on ourselves and first demolish the false image of Dubya as the Great Protector™, then explain why this not-so-strong daddy shouldn't be given the powers of a dictator?
Maybe it's because we think it's hard -- but all we have to remember is that (as Matt Yglesias notes today) the GOP protection myth is based more on personal attributes and general stances than specific policies ... and that the one event that damaged Dubya's poll numbers on terrorism/national security most wasn't in Iraq or anywhere else overseas, but Hurricane Katrina here at home.
Whatever our would-be Emperor Shrub was thinking about when he appointed his former campaign manager's college buddy to head FEMA, it wasn't protecting America at all costs. And as much as he loves to cite Iraq as "the central front in the War on Terror," do you think he really wants to face the pointed question of whether losing more than 2,200 American lives in Iraq was the best way to protect America after September 11th?
Think about it .. after failing to prevent the attacks in the first place, Dubya took us to war to eliminate a threat from weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, then declared "Mission Accomplished" without seeing the insurgent threat that did exist and has killed more than two thousand of our soldiers.
At this point, you could throw in Katrina, Dubya's helplessness in addressing Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and the future terrorist threat posed by increasing resentment of America overseas, but that would just be piling on. The point is, if this is the judgment Americans are depending on to protect us from terrorism, then we're going to get hit again. And that's what Democrats need to start saying, unapologetically.
Rather than continuing to bring our logical and principled knives to a gut-level gun fight, why not make it easier on ourselves and first demolish the false image of Dubya as the Great Protector™, then explain why this not-so-strong daddy shouldn't be given the powers of a dictator?
Maybe it's because we think it's hard -- but all we have to remember is that (as Matt Yglesias notes today) the GOP protection myth is based more on personal attributes and general stances than specific policies ... and that the one event that damaged Dubya's poll numbers on terrorism/national security most wasn't in Iraq or anywhere else overseas, but Hurricane Katrina here at home.
Whatever our would-be Emperor Shrub was thinking about when he appointed his former campaign manager's college buddy to head FEMA, it wasn't protecting America at all costs. And as much as he loves to cite Iraq as "the central front in the War on Terror," do you think he really wants to face the pointed question of whether losing more than 2,200 American lives in Iraq was the best way to protect America after September 11th?
Think about it .. after failing to prevent the attacks in the first place, Dubya took us to war to eliminate a threat from weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, then declared "Mission Accomplished" without seeing the insurgent threat that did exist and has killed more than two thousand of our soldiers.
At this point, you could throw in Katrina, Dubya's helplessness in addressing Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and the future terrorist threat posed by increasing resentment of America overseas, but that would just be piling on. The point is, if this is the judgment Americans are depending on to protect us from terrorism, then we're going to get hit again. And that's what Democrats need to start saying, unapologetically.
Glad to see that someone sees W's game for just what it is; a protection racket the Gambino family would envy.
No comments:
Post a Comment