Bush PR Machine Works Myth and Magic on Iraq
George W. Bush's trip to Iraq was the ultimate stunt in a huge long PR campaign to turn public opinion on the war. And let's face it: Sad to say, it's working. Many Democrats who thought they could score points by demanding a fixed timetable for withdrawal are now running scared and talking about nothing but compromise.
It's like watching a great magic trick. You see the change in public opinion happening right before your eyes, and all you can say is "How the hell did they do that?"
Please, let's not blame "cowardly Democrat." Elected legislators go where the votes are. That's how democracy works, and how it should work. The last thing we should want is politicians who do what they think is right regardless of public opinions. That means they'll do whatever they damn please (see, e.g.: Bush, George W.; Cheney, Richard).
The big question is not "Why are so many Democrats spineless?" It's "Why are so many voters changing their minds about a failed war?"
Such a shift in public opinion is as complicated as the onset of a cancer. It takes a huge number of experts to explain it, because each sees only part of the whole picture. There are, in fact, political scientists who spend their whole lives studying public opinion. Each of them can explain part of the picture. The weird thing is that we in the peace movement seem to show no interest in learning about what they know.
Imagine a doctor telling you: "You have this particular kind of cancer. There are experts who know a lot about what causes your kind of cancer, but we doctors don't pay any attention to their research. Since we don't have a clue what causes it, we can't begin to tell you how to cure it." That's pretty much the position peace activists are in now. Public support for more war in Iraq is a cancer in the body politic. It's a matter of life and death. It's time for us to demand that the people who understand something about it tell us what they know.
As a historian of American religion, I think I see at least a small part of the picture.
Let's start with some startling findings from the most recent UPI/Zogby poll. 37.7 percent of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was working with Osama bin Laden when the 9/11 attacks occurred. Add in the 4.6 percent who say "maybe," and you get 46.3 percent who still do not know that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Equally amazingly, 43.6 percent still believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded his country four years ago. It can't be just coincidence that virtually the same number (42.6 percent, to be precise) say they now support the war (30.2 percent "strongly").
But here's the most crucial statistic: 54 percent say that we still have a chance to win the war. That's surely the number they are crowing about in the White House. Their PR machine is aiming at the crucial 11.4 percent who oppose the war but believe we can still win it.
What we are dealing with is people who can be persuaded to believe things that are demonstrably untrue. That points us toward my field of study, religion, and more particularly toward a ubiquitous religious phenomenon: myth. When myths are effective they tell us what we should, or can, believe as fact. In religious studies we have a lot of theories about why people choose to, and can be persuaded to, believe myths even when they contradict obvious facts.
One of my favorite theories says that a lot of people feel confused and overwhelmed by the uncontrollable changes of life, especially in unsettled economic times when their own fortunes seem so unpredictable. They want some way to find a sense of order amid the seeming chaos of life. So they tell familiar stories about their lives, over and over, and fit the facts of their lives into those stories -- even if they have to distort the facts to make them fit. Some of the myths people value most are about their nation. That's certainly always been true here in the United States.
Most Americans have wanted (often desperately) to believe that their nation and its government has profoundly good intentions. Oh, the government often screws up, the myths say. But basically our leaders always mean well -- especially in foreign policy. They really want to do the right thing, which means protecting ourselves and the whole world from evil foreigners who want to turn the tranquil order of our lives into brutal chaos. We have a special responsibility to stop those evildoers, the myths tell us, because we are a uniquely blessed nation. Being so blessed, we are bound to win. But evil, like the devil, is fanatical. Defeating it takes the courage to persist in a long war -- the kind of courage that proves we are real Americans. For many Americans, believing in this mythic vision is more important than believing the factual truth.
The Bush administration is playing brilliantly upon this need for myth. Its PR experts know that once you start questioning the righteousness of a war, you can very easily start questioning the rightness of the national myths, and many Americans are nervous about taking that risk. That's especially true of the crucial swing vote, the 8 percent or so who told the Zogby poll that they oppose the war, but only mildly. Once they have some shred of evidence that suggests the war may be winnable, they may quickly turn from antiwar to prowar voters.
And Democratic politicians (whose only job, remember, is to please the voters) don't even trust all of the 50 percent who say they strongly oppose the war. Nor should they. The pols know how quickly some of those people can change their minds because they are out on a limb, on the edge of challenging the traditional national myths. Once they realize how far out they've gone, and how little is left supporting them in the way of nationalistic belief, they may easily get scared and go scampering back to a traditional prowar position. That's what the White House is betting on and doing their damndest to make happen.
It's not surprising that they were having notable success even before Bush went for his photo op in Iraq. The amazing thing is not the number of politicians who will not vote against the war. The amazing thing is the number who still say they will. Their stance tell us that millions of our fellow citizens do want to end the war. That's the good news. Now the job is to convince enough others, so that more Democrats and at least a few Republicans feel safe enough to vote for peace.
The place to start is to recognize that the peace movement has been playing right into the administration's hand by agreeing to put all the focus on the single question: Can we win the war? There are so many other reasons to oppose the war, beyond the fact that we cannot win it. But even many peace activists seem to have forgotten those other reasons in the rush to win the debate about winnability.
But if the Zogby poll is right, we are losing that debate anyway, since nearly one-eighth of the nation opposes the war yet thinks it can be won. Apparently they know that it is wrong to continue this murderous war, even if we could in some sense "win" it. Maybe it makes sense to find out why those people oppose the war and build our arguments on their views. The first step is to ask the experts who understand how the cancer of public support for war grows. If you know any, please insist that they share their knowledge with the rest of us.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin. Email: chernus@colorado.edu
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
37 Comments so far
Show AllThe war we have neworden is against "the system" which tries continually to control our lives, our minds, by all possible means. That war will have to go on till we manage to change our society into one acceptable to all life on earth.This is the biggest challenge we have ever faced. But with enough passion, anger, determination, it can and will be done. It's a matter of survival. WE HAHE TO MAKE IT CHANGE. Throughout history single individuals have made huge changes - with the internet - all things are made possible.
IF media did the job of informing I'd like to see a photo show of any child in Iraq who has had a limb or body part blasted away. I'd like to hear the voice-over say "We're winning this war!" as child after child in mutilated condition is presented on the screen. When I was a college girl and the Vietnam War was raging, there was a fascinating slide show that was circulating, at least on the North East. It educated us. It showed us what dum dum bullets do... it showed that the company that proudly owned Wonderbread, "builds strong bodies 12 ways" was their motto, also built these weapons. IF people really saw what this bull shit about winning, this disgusting false CONSTRUCT cannibalized, they could never BE the same.
We cannot win a war that was based on lies to promote personal agendas and greed. It was lost on day 1. Why argue details?
MSM = Mainstream media
BugsBBunny III
What's up doc? Ditto!
It seems to me that a solution to this confusion is within our reach.
With science as our model, we can take the fantasy that humans collectively "believe" to be truth and try our best to disprove the myth. The heroes of science are the myth-busters. If the myth survives this intellectual and systematic assault then it reigns as a tentative theory until a new hero cuts it down to truth.
Why can't we organize a systematic assault on the myths of history and politics? I have been brainstorming these ideas for a few years now. I see a wikipedia-like community of historians from all over the globe contributing to a rating system (1-10 to keep it simple). If a "myth" survives with a very high rating for truth, say 9-10, then it would become an undisputed historical fact.
Then, it could and should become standard practice for news journalists and op-ed writers to include the rating of the "facts" they are purveying on their readers.
I have even come up with a mathematical model for the 1-10 system.
Imagine if the world's experts on WMD were given a chance to be heard before Bush invaded Iraq? The experts knew there was a very small chance that Saddam had WMD leftover from the 1980s and even smaller chance that he had developed them since UNSCOM left in 1998. In such a case, when Cheney claimed absolute certainty about Saddam's WMD the journalists would have been accountable to check the international rating of the "fact". Every newspaper in the country would have contradicted Cheney and Bush. There would have been zero support for the war and the world would still be sympathetic to American values.
Peace
Andrew
Nanoo, I saw his commentary and loved it! Keith is about the only one in MSM that speaks truth to power. I wonder sometimes how long they'll let him continue to rage?
Did any of you watch Keith Olberman, Countdown, last night? Keith O. had a special comment directed at Bush relating to his PR photo stunt in Iraq and the book Dead Certain about Bush's intentions for the rest of his term. Holy shit, it was great. At least we have one commentator, main stream, with the guts and balls to tell it like it is.
What is MSM
It is the MSM that has been and will continue to help W sell this war. We have the President, the Congress the Senate AND the media against us. But, in the end, the TRUTH will prevail!
Please, let's not blame "cowardly Democrat."
This is where I stopped reading. F!!! the cowardly democrats. F!!! 'em all the way to hell! I am sick to death (about 650,000 Iraqi's and Afghan's and another 3-4,000 'coalition' forces) of the goddam apologists crying 'pleeeze don't blame us'. The bullshit the Republican propagandists are spreading on ANY subject simply go to prove their point that Dem's are wimps and pussies. Their words not mine.
Right, I'm all done with blaming the cowardly Dem's and I'm thinking they need to be included when we impeach the Congress, Senate, Supreme Court Jesters and THEN who ever is left in freakin BLACK House of blood on the Potomac River of Death. The reality is you have a corporate sponsored electorate in BOTH parties which write all laws to cater to the specific industry in question. Dem's like Billary and Leiberman and Biden and the rest all voted FOR the Iraq war abdicating their Constitutional responsibility of declaring war to the President, any President not just Bush.
If the Dem's really had any courage they would stand up say the things Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich have been saying for sometime. I'd ventuer a bet that Kucinich may actually be the front runner and the media is (OH My gosh!!) LYING IT A$$ OFF again about who is for what. They don't and won't stand up so let's stop prtetending that they didn't have anything to do with the situations we face today. BOTH parties work for the Aristocracy of America thereby rending moot our very COnstitution and the sacred 'rule of law' politicos spew and ramble about but are the very first in line to ignore such laws as they deem necessary.
It is time to invoke the part of the Declaration of Independence that states when a government no longer does the will of the people it should be removed and replaced with haste. So go march in your preordained 'free speech' area under police surveillance following the route assign to you by the very authorities you pretend to protest.
you can delude yourself into thinking that eventually Americans who have been robbed blind will become so numerous they will rise up and revolt. Problem is they end up in jail and silenced thereby eliminating that possibility. We ARE still number one in both the number and percentage of population incarcerated in the US!! We're #1!!!
The reality is that Americans are going to get a lesson (because we failed to learn shit from 9-11) in just exactly why it is the people oppressed in 3rd world countries don't rise up and remove their dictators. We will get a lesson in how boomerangs work as well. we have been allowing our government to rape and pillage the planet in the name of lies and thiefs for more than 50 years. Manifest Arrogance. Well the chicken has come home to roost.
Or.... we can put the remote down and get up and take some real action and create a new economy that is based on real job creation which is both sustainable and does not harm the environment. Howard Zinn has reminded us frequently that no change ever comes about by the government, only when the people demand change does it come. Had enough of the 2 party sham and ruse yet? Or will you wait until its your turn to do some time?
From a psychological perspective, I think warmongering "works" because it targets the core concerns that often govern our lives as individuals and groups—concerns about personal and collective vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. I apply this framework to the Bush administration's war in Iraq—and its possible plans for an attack on Iran—in a 10-minute online video entitled "Resisting the Drums of War." The video examines ten warmongering appeals and provides counterarguments against them. It's available for viewing HERE.
Not to insult all the obviously intelligent and thoughtful people who visit this site, but...
Americans believe everything they see on TV!
The PR machine wiped their memories of Bush's past including: drunken driving, cocaine, tanking every business venture, his connection to the Bin Ladens, granddads Hitler connection.
Less than 1/6th of you dummies voted for George Bush and won his Presidency. Twice! Is that what your Civil War secured for you??? Wake up.
Piffle... snatched a scrap from a bottom of a file page at the end there...sorry.
All truth is myth say some? A post modernist definition or a psyops maxim? The myth of truth or that our myths are the only 'truth' we seek?
The mainstream media won't tell us the truth anymore anyway! Our politicians will tell us virtually anything and then the MSMpress prints it anyway (fixing myth to policy?). All the news that fits our myths. And all that myths that are fit to print.
It is a bad combination but effective for spinning the truth into the daily barrage of myths spun by the likes of talk radio. Besides resorting to the far more easily manipulated core beliefs about ourselves works because they aren't dependent on day to day facts. These core myths are our identity as a nation or group etc., and went relatively unquestioned except as Bush went John Wayne in his 'bring em on' characterization of an invasion.
For some all they need hear is that the surge is working. They hope in their concern for our men and the civilians over there that it is true. They therefore are naturally reluctant to question support for something they hope is true. Meanwhile they are told it is working like just like they have been told many times before over these last four years of turning corners but still that core hope for the sake of the men tries to believe. Whether it is true or not at that point isn't so important to someone who is trying to believe that it is true. Fear of finding out it is false (hopes dashed yet again) gets worse each time.
The facts and failures of Bush's fiasco in Iraq get overlaid with an appeal to this core myth of who we want to be and thought we were and once that happens who can question ...um ...John Wayne or mom and apple pie?
Besides who can find the truth that easily anymore in our mainstream media. Yeah we have to seek it out from multiple sources. Lucky for us we still can as yet. The free press survives on the net and becomes our free speech access for civilian discourse and alternatives to local MSM news sources. That is actually better than being dependent on the official MSMpress. Free speech is the internet because the free press can still get heard and even better read on the internet. That part saves us. Now if we could just save our constitution...?
Oh haven't you heard? Bush stapled a signing statement to it. FDR said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" Well... maybe these days it is more like this >>> The only thing we have to fear is being afraid of our own freedoms.
The old way of doing things is failing us. Fossilization is settling in with privatization and globalization. Our former civilian government has become a now semi-permanent corporatized (Cheney has been in govt. since the nixon era) elite. This long corrupted old guard feels that allowing themselves to be greedy incompetents shouldn't be a bar to their reelection or reappointment.
Elect as many outsiders as possible in 08!!! This old guard semi-permanent government are also making themselves secret and of course who wouldn't trust people like Cheney's dealings (Haliburton?) and contracts are made secret? The congress and conservative courts let Bush have royal powers and then say he has the power and they can do nothing to stop him. They make secret what they are doing to us under the guise of fighting terror they fight against our remaining a free people. They put into place unconstitutional and downright fascistic laws and signing statements (what truth is there in a new law passed if the king says he will not obey it?) and feed us with the mega-myth that it still represents democracy.
We do not question our love of our democracy and the MSMpress prints the official explanation and the two become conflated each and every time. If the truth is post modern and therefore impossible to find, it being anywhere and everywhere it isn't...um... I do not recall ever liking a post modernist at a party even once. I used to introduce them to a Trotskyite just to annoy both of them!
Who the hell ever knew whether a Trotskyite ever really knew what they were talking about because they soon had us not even listening. Post modernists define themselves ...which has always seems beside the point since there was no way to make sure they actually knew what they were talking about either.
So what is the truth and where do you find an honest man? The truth has to be sought for, while our myths seek us out insteade with their siren's call to what we always believed or wanted to be true.
Now deduct the number of people who spend the time that news junkies, political blogwogs and reporters do finding the pieces to the get a bigger picture. That leaves that person who is considered fairly well informed based on what they get from the mainstream news and their neighbors.
I think you could find an honest man but that wouldn't necessarily mean that he actually knows anything. He may be woefully uninformed but otherwise honest. A sports only guy or a soap opera celeb fanatic type.
To paraphrase >>> The news is out there! ... but the truth may not be. So you have to look pieces of truth in a number of places to tease it out from under all that spin.
They make what they are doing secret leaving only themselves to even know what is being done and only they who should be doing it. Our secret government is by definition NOT a democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
Every kid in America knows the Santa Claus story is highly suspect by 5 or 6 years old.
This mythical occupation story is supported by less facts than Santa, (the kid gets the gifts) but every stupid proclamation by perhaps the worst speaker to ever hold the White house is repeated as if it was believable 6 years into the story.
How do adults get so stupid?
We the People can't beat the corporations unless we beat them at their own game and incorporate.
If elected legislators go where the votes are, why didn't the Democrats go directly to work to end the war by defunding it, since that's what they were voted in to do? Americans are sick of this war/occupation but our "representatives" don't give a rat's ass what we think.
". The last thing we should want is politicians who do what they think is right regardless of public opinions. That means they'll do whatever they damn please (see, e.g.: Bush, George W.; Cheney, Richard)."
Instead of declaring the rightness of the principle & the utter evil of those who misapply the principle in order to brazen out mass murder, the professor is incapable of standing up and saying "Of course morality demands that one act against pollster-driven 'democracy' in order to assert real democracy."
Even if Bush had actually outpolled John Kerry in the last election, and even if all those voting were actually voting for Kerry's ridiculous equivocation or Bush's outright murder, the democratic position, the one asserting democratic values would have been that of the anti-occupation voters. If there are ten people against militarist murder and 100,000,000 for it, the democratic position is the one that gets the ten votes, not the one that gets 100,000,000.
This article shows the fundamental inconsequence of pundits who object to the neocon philosophy & yet submit to being rendered politically impotent.
The mocking tone of the Bush apparatchik who claimed that those like Chernus belonged to the 'reality-based' community is wholly deserved; except that Chernus, etc., don't belong to the 'reality-based' community, but to the pacifist community, to the undialectical 'reality' community. The Bushitters don't have the votes; instead, they ACT AS IF THEY HAD THE VOTES, and then know that neither the Murderstream Media nor the Bendovercrats are going to have the courage to contest their assertion. The way to stop PR, to stop a magic trick, is not to sit amazed & gaping, but to run onto the stage, kick the magician's arse, smash the trunk & expose the mechanism.
But Pelosi, Conyers, Brian Baird, the dickwit who came back from Iraq telling his angry constituents that he had to help the troops win -- no fear that the votes are entirely against him there -- and Chernus are not political actors at all; they've already made themselves pawns, no matter how liberal or progressive they think themselves. They have absolutely ceded power before the game starts. This is why Lenin called all this sort of racaille "useful idiots" -- they would never really grasp the nature of the struggle.
FREE Radio & TV
Right from the beginning of our Republic, many individual owners of newspapers pumped out lies to support their own self-interest. Radio and the TV Media came along and nothing much changed until anti-democratic corporations owned by the Almighty Rich merged to monopolize and control everything American's could hear and see.
The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable and balanced. It also sought to prevent consolidation and monopolization of the airwaves, but the doctrine was abandoned by the Reagan Administration to pave the way for Corporatism. Where we are now.
We fell for the lure of Free Radio and TV entertainment, but lost our freedom to mass mind control. This is the way it works: They don't tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; they lie and tell us only what supports their own self-interest.
We have come full circle, but now only a half dozen corporations owned by the Almighty Rich control the lies and brainwashing. That's called Capitalism.
If we ever get the notion to resist Capitalism, lies and brainwashing, we can begin by blocking out Big Media news. We aren't ever going to hear the truth about anything important on TV.
Someone will always lie to us, but "In a multitude of counsel, there is safety." Proverbs.
Don't pass on lies from generation to generation, "Teach your children well," what you have learned.
.
Ira Chernus is actually understating the American Psyche.
Until the US populace gets the courage to take to the streets and follow the example of Gandhi's non-violent marches and demonstrations nothing will change. The people have got to WANT the Constitution restored enough to ACT accordingly. If there is no such desire, there will will be no more US Constitution (except in name only).
Things will change only when the populace is alienated and hopeless.
Then they may :
STAND UP - for what they beleive to be right.
SIT DOWN - in the nearest street to bring transportaion, retail, everything to a standstill.
FIGHT - I hope like Gandhi's Pathan friend Badshar Khan(Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan) (check him out)a Pashtun nonviolent Muslim
FIGHT - Even if it means sacrifice to themselves to totally repudiate the oligarchy
FIGHT - As if their lives depend on active resistance - which they do
When people realize that they cannot ignore the actions of the government and relaize they themselves are the governmet, only then is change possible.
What a shame to let cowardice bring down such a noble experiment of human governance!!
Here are some comments by a man who stood by Gandhi - Badshah Khan, who led a 100,000 person army of non-violent Pashtuns from the Khyber pass region. He was a Pashtun (Afghan) political and spiritual leader known for his non-violent opposition to British Rule during the final years of the Empire on the Indian sub-continent. He was a lifelong pacifist and a devout Muslim. He was known as Badshah Khan (sometimes written as Bacha Khan), the `King of Chiefs', and `Frontier Gandhi'.
"To me nonviolence has come to represent a panacea for all the evils that surround my people. Therefore I am devoting all my energies toward the establishment of a society that would be based on its principles of truth and peace." –
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan
"Today's world is traveling in some strange direction. You see that the world is going toward destruction and violence. And the specialty of violence is to create hatred among people and to create fear. I am a believer in nonviolence and I say that no peace or tranquility will descend upon the people of the world until nonviolence is practiced, because nonviolence is love and it stirs courage in people." – Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan to an interviewer in 1985
His story is contained in 'Nonviolent Soldier of Islam: Badshah Khan, A Man To Match His Mountains', by Eknath Easwaran (Published by Nilgiri Press).
Also see NPR highlights:
http://www.npr.org/programs/musings/2003/jan/khan.html?sc=emaf
Prof. Chernus' delineation of the American psyche is right on the mark. The belief in American exceptionalism, that this nation is somehow consecrated and occupies a moral plane above all others, is unshakeable. The idea that our government sometimes acts immorally and dishonestly results in a profound cognitive dissonance, in a realm that has nothing to do with verifiable facts or objective reality.
When presented with accounts of American wrongdoing, many Americans have no interest in determining whether they're true, but instinctively and vehemently reject them. That's because their main response is to protect the belief system that they have believed in, and from which they have derived so much comfort and smugness over the years.
To these people, criticism of America cannot be valid. It can be only heresy.
I see, a new product launch right after Labor Day.
I wonder if the slogan is "If you loved Iraq, You'll go absolutely crazy over Iran!"
Ira Chernus, I'm not so sure you're right about any of this. You may have it backwards. Seems to me the politicians have swerved some out of their usual fears, rather than public opinion.
#
The Dems are merely the Washington Generals to the Repub's Harlem Globetrotters. They have their act to play and are allowed to win once in a while as long as people keep buying tickets.
#
ok... stop buying the tickets.
What Nancy Pelosi really meant when she said "impeachment is off the table" in November 2006 is:
The Democratic Party stategy is to let the clock run out for the next two years.
This might be a good strategy for a team with a good defensive history that is several points ahead. The Democratic Party was and is neither of those two things.
Anybody with a three digit IQ can see that this is a RISKY STRATEGY.
Please, let's not blame "cowardly Democrat." Elected legislators go where the votes are. That's how democracy works, and how it should work
garbage. Because the problem is and has been for awhile, that there is NO representation for what the people want from healthcare to Iraq, in our Government. And that is despite efforts of the corporate class to spin everything as national myth. If there were at least some true representation of where the majority is--stated in bold, uncompromised terms--if there was a voice that was not marginalized or dismissed like Kucinich is, then there wouldn't be a problem convincing the clueless of alternative myths that seek to speak truth to corruption.
Democrats would rather pander to the myth and adherence to the myth makes us all good Germans.
why do you keep asking the same fucking questions when you and everyone else here already knows the answers--however inconvenient????
Internet columnists need to focus less on quantity and more on quality...
Anybody who gets their news from the MSM (main stream media) is buying product, just like any other show. The MSM has responsibility only to their shareholders.
Going back to Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock", the world is increasingly complex and changing. Thus, many people don't have the time or desire to be well-informed (try asking people how many countries there are).
They rely for their views on the authority figures, the experts, that they have been trained to look toward.
The PR machine is being successful in framing the September reports as a military assessment. Since the administration has canned the generals they don't like, the ones now in charge will give the assessment that is desired.
The Dems are merely the Washington Generals to the Repub's Harlem Globetrotters. They have their act to play and are allowed to win once in a while as long as people keep buying tickets.
one glaringly obvious step is to start reframing the issue. one either wins or loses a "war," but nobody wins an "occupation."
ever read the green party's platform?
Its worth watching, just to learn a bit about how the machine works. But calling it the "Bush PR machine" is a bit misleading. Its much, much bigger than Bush, and involves all the corporate media in the US.
Watch closely which media outlets trumpets the White House line without question or comment? Or that add their own editorial comments in support of this "surge is working" BS? Watch and learn. Because that's the media outlets you should tune out and not even watch, read or listen to in the future ... except as a matter of just learning who lies, who supports the lies, and how they do it.
The danger of calling it the "Bush PR machine" is that it raises the false hope that it will disappear when Bush leaves office. Instead, what must be realized is that its this PR machine that is much larger than Bush that put Bush in office in the first place, helped con the nation into the war in Iraq, has helped continue to con the nation into staying longer and longer in Iraq, and which now is trying to tell us everything is ok. And its the same PR machine that will tell the country who the next two nominees for President are and which one will be elected.
The sad part is the way the Dem strategy plays into this. The Dems seem to be blind to the environment they work in. They have bizarre beliefs that letters to the editor might change the way the machine works. And they consistently appear to fail to take into account the existence and likely reactions to the machine when forming their strategy.
The Dems have played right into the machine's hands. They first voted to fully fund the war through the end of the fiscal year. Then they put out loudly and strongly the "wait until September" message, mainly to try to quell the opinions of people who were pissed the war was just fully funded. But the "wait till September" strategy is perfectly setup for Bush and the corporate PR machine to make a quick blitz about how everything is getting better with the surge.
The way to compete against the machine is to keep it off balance. To keep the initiative in your hands and try to keep the machine always reacting to you. You don't let them setup a big campaign like this with all its advance planning, instead you keep them scrambling day to day to respond to what you are doing. That's when they look desperate and make mistakes. Ie, you beat the machine by doing exactly the opposite of what the Dems have done on the war.
So the Dems have set up themselves in a spot where they've declared well in advance that September would be the time for their debate on the war. By doing so they've lost all initiative and momentum to the corporate spin machine, which has plenty of time and opportunity to gear up for this long-announced debate. Thus September will look a lot like the end period of political campaigns where a lot of smoke and BS will fly hard and fast out of the spin machine. They don't have to win the debate. They just need to mislead, obscure, make lots of noise and generally create confusion. The confusion saps the energy and drive of those less than fully committed to ending the war, and thus provides a short time of political cover for Congress to vote to fully fund the war until the end of the Bush administration.
Its obvious how its going to play out. What isn't obvious is why the Dems can't seem to figure out they compete in an environment where the media is hostile to them and develop appropriate strategies and responses. When it happens once, you figure they missed that one. But when it happens time after time, especially at the end of almost all campaign seasons, one starts to wonder if its accidental that the Dems always lose because of awful strategies, or if the awful strategies are always deliberately designed such tha the Dems will lose... or more accurately, that the people of this country will lose in a debate staged by two parties which both represent the people who are making money off this war.
Agree with Vern wholeheartedly,
our 'representative' democracy has ceased being representative for a long time now, or maybe it's only representative of the will of corporate America, certainly not ordinary working citizens. Look at congress, they are all millionaires, who do you suppose they represent?
"Elected legislators go where the votes are. That's how democracy works, and how it should work." Wrong! Wrong, Wrong!!! That is a perverse distortion of democracy. Candidates for public office, whether elected or not, should honestly state what they believe in. If the voters agree with it, they will vote for them. If not, they will not. That's true democracy. If I run on a platform that opposes genocide, but I later conclude that the majority of the voters favour genocide, does that mean I should change my platform to favour genocide?
Mark Marshall
Toronto
"The first step is to ask the experts who understand how the cancer of public support for war grows. If you know any, please insist that they share their knowledge with the rest of us."
Here's how: A.) Because THERE IS NO WAR and those opposed to our illegal occupation of Iraq continue to use the Rove frame, which grants the Loonitary Decider "war powers" until further notice. And when "the people" see him make dictatorial moves without opposition, they assume he must, indeed, have "war powers."
B.) What "the people" want most is to not have to think about the bigger pictures - they'd much rather hear, "Don't worry about it. Someone, somewhere, is taking care of the situation." So they will grasp at any opportunity to shuck responsibility off to the next guy who, in this case, just happens to be the Number One Domestic Enemy To The Constitution and World Peace. Who cares - he says he's takin' care of sh*t - put "Idol" back on.
And that's all it takes. Assure half the people that a "leader" is in "control," and that'll be the last time they think about it. Tell them some other guy has taken control, and they'll switch sides before a blink is finished.
In keeping with the law of reciprocity and the tenor of so many bloggers I submit that we think of ourselves as 'footnotes'to a runaway history. Thus propose that not unlike the assiduous work of Naomie Kline we 'vote with our feet'.
Taking the conservative admonition that if you do not exercise the franchise your voice is moot... think of letterwriting to your representative as providing the footnotes to a history being taken back by the people.
Keep notes brief, to the point and consider wording you would like to be shared with posterity. Pause and think about it. Write a brief four sentence statement on every salient concern you have. Thank them for their attention. Do this at least once a week - maybe over morning coffee.
It is no longer important whether or not they respond, what is important is that they be shown. By doing so through an organization such as the Friends, the numbers register.
Jujitsu Sea change anyone?
To assist in this non-violent edifying preparation of footnotes for a new history, there are organizations such as the American Friends Service Committee which has the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Letter writing simplified:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/
Your rep by zip; you can get on the listserve for upcoming legislation. Love thine enemy - regularly.
It isn't "Myth and Magic." It's lies and more lies. If the media would merely report what W says and then enlighten the reader/viewer why the statement is false, people might be better served. Ignorance isn't bliss, it is being American.
"Can we win the war? There are so many other reasons to oppose the war, beyond the fact that we cannot win it. But even many peace activists seem to have forgotten those other reasons in the rush to win the debate about winnability."
You're being too optimistic here, Ira. I feel as if its been months, maybe years, since I've heard a peace activist make a cogent argument about the war. Mostly what I see is whining about the Democrats.
We can't win is not a bad argument. It is true. Iraq will go its own way sooner or later. Although the US may be able to pay off enough tribal leaders to give the illusion that 'the surge is working', this doesn't create the terrain for a friendly, stable, Iraq, still more or less the stated, perhaps real goal. Meanwhile the US army is exhausted and near its breaking point.
The war is intensifying anger at the US, in Iraq and elsewhere is also a good argument. So is the fact that the war is draining money from the US. And locking up increasing numbers of Iraqis (60,000, according to figures in today's NY Times) is not a good idea, for them or us.
You are on to something, but the solution is not obvious. We must forthrightly repudiate the myths of American nationalism, in part for the sake of the US. Yet doing so is likely to marginalize progressive voices. Still, I think a firm rejection of American nationalism--perhaps vilifying the war machine as imperialists, idiots, scumbags, etc. will open some space for more moderate anti-war politicians. This 'support the troops', 'occupy Afghanistan (or Darfur) instead of Iraq' obviously isn't getting us anywhere.