As I'm sure democrats around here are familiar with, I've got a real problem with the way language and reality are tortured by political movements
to wrap serious, complex issues which must be understood
into euphonic little catch phrases which conjure faulty analogies, dismiss the
facts, and invite people to apply the answers to the last generation's problems to very different modern situations. My distaste for these simplistic
answers is only matched by utter disgust with the rabid fanaticism with which they are embraced by people who obviously haven't spent enough time
actually questioning the subject for themselves.
Chill ECK, I'm talking about the Republicans this time.
Not only has this administration made it clear that their opponents don't have a monopoly on immaturity, but it has proven to be far more tactically
and technically proficient than their opponents in the employment of immaturity.
And in that contradiction lies a great question. Immaturity and proficiency do not typically go together. So is it just immaturity? Or is it a
professional-grade effort to harness the immaturity of others for far more calculated reasons? (ie: propaganda as opposed to raw vitriol)
A series of observations:
1. Fascism is a form of totalitarian government related to corporatism, and infact stated to be one in the same with corporatism by Benito Mussolini.
This is inherently incompatible with Islam, particularly in a nation that is not an Islamic theocracy. A Ba'athist nation cannot possibly be home to
such a thing as "Islamofascism", nor can a democratic government in which there is serious opposition (there goes the Palestinian Hamas gov't.)...
basically the only nation that even has a fighting chance of being branded Islamofascist is Iran.
This is not mere nitpicking but an important distinction with strategic implications. Fascism is centered in the state and the economy and can be
confronted in those arenas. Islamic fundementalism is centered in the populous and the religious heirarchy, and must be confronted in those arenas.
The estimations and strategies derived from past experience with fascism are not applicable to the war on terror, hence the disparity between
"werewolf" resistance in Germany and the resistance in Iraq.
Of course, that doesn't penetrate the partisan brain-shell. Some will actually claim that Iraq is no worse than occupied Germany was. I know a few
dead people who might have an opinion on that matter...
but that leads us to yet another observation: I can't ask those dead people what they think because I have to ...
2. Support our troops! Looking at my truck, you would never know that I support our troops. I don't do bumper-stickers. Supporting the troops is an
odd pursuit. I'm given the impression that it has a lot more to do with rallying behind the flag and the president and swearing to perservere through
any failure, any embarrassment, and any better idea than with actually rendering any aid or comfort to the fighting men.
3. The opposite of "supporting the troops" does not appear to be opposing the troops. It is suggesting that maybe the troops don't have to fight,
otherwise branded appeasement
Let's look at the term appeasement in its most noteworthy historical context, namely the Sudetenland.
The power which was to be appeased demanded that they be given something that they did not have and could not normally peacefully obtain, and it was
given to them so that there would not be a war. This of course only encouraged the agressor to demand more.
Does this fit the context of the war on terror? Who makes the demands? Iran? Iraq? Afghanistan? No. America made the demands. If America doesn't get
what they want, there will be a war. It's not appeasement to not threaten war to get what you want- that's called being innocent of extortion. It
is, ironically, our opponents who are given the choice to appease or not to appease.
And I'll close on the one I'll be accused of: anti-americanism. I'm a flippin American. L'État, c'est moi (and a few hundred million other
people). How could I POSSIBLY be anti-me? America is not a policy, but a group of people. I'm against certain policies and for others. If Bush wants
a hamburger but decides on steak, then by his own supporter's logic he is a bush-basher, because he has questioned his own policy. Clearly Bush is
not a bush-basher if he changes his mind about dinner, just as I am not anti-American for disagreeing with the administration from time to time.
These political buzzwords are symptomatic of a division and dumbing down of American politics that if not soon countered through education and open
discourse is going to destroy the most fundamental necessity for democracy, which is of course a public intellectually capable of weighing policy.
What say that all of us who don't live in battle-ground states have a write-in campaign to elect Thomas Jefferson again in 2008? Obviously he can't
win but it would get coverage if we could get him enough votes and it would send an interesting message.