The alliance between George Bush and Tony Blair is in danger after it was revealed that the Prime Minister believes the President has ‘let him down badly’ over the Middle East crisis.
A senior Downing Street source said that, privately, Mr Blair broadly agrees with John Prescott, who said Mr Bush’s record on the issue was ‘crap’.
The source said: “We all feel badly let down by Bush. We thought we had persuaded him to take the Israel-Palestine situation seriously, but we were wrong. How can anyone have faith in a man of such low intellect?”
I was just watching MSNBC do an in-depth report on the controversy surrounding Madonna’s depiction of a crucifixion in her concert. (Here’s a video of one of the discussions.)
Madonna faces arrest over her controversial mock crucifixion.
The ‘Hung Up’ singer could be arrested when she performs in Germany on Sunday (20.08.06) if she goes ahead with the much-criticized routine.
Dusseldorf police have warned the singer that she could be in breach of their “insulting religious beliefs” law and they will be in the crowd ready to act if she attempts the stunt.
Singer Madonna is reportedly being threathened by Russian mobsters who are plotting to kidnap her and her two kids. The threat came as the pop icon prepared for her upcoming tour stop in Moscow next month.
[…]
The alleged kidnap plot is expected to have stemmed from Madonna’s controversial mock crucifixion, in which she wears a crown of fake thorns while performing on a mirrored cross, that has sparked outrage among religious leaders across the globe.
I immedately did a little check around the right blogosphere to see what the right was doing to defend Madonna’s right to mock religion. After all, the entire rightwing blogosphere wrote stirring defenses of those Danish cartoons didn’t they? They all agreed that free speech and a free press were fundamental western values and that simply because certain religious people somewhere might be offended by certain images, it was no reason to withhold them. Indeed, it was reason to publish them, which many of these right wing bloggers did, with no compunction about offending the muslims in their own communities or around the world.
But strangely, I saw nothing about this Madonna thing. Perhaps they just haven’t heard about this affront to liberal western values yet. But then, they have some rather strange ideas about what political speech should be defended and what should be condemned, don’t they? They went crazy when Jane Hamsher posted a satirical image of Joe Lieberman in blackface and didn’t even blink an eye at their own intellectual inconsistency. At the time I looked around for some of their stirring defenses of the Danish cartoons and found many. It was a certifiable cause in the right blogosphere, all done in the name of western liberal values.
This battle over the Danish cartoons highlights all of these philosophical dilemmas (which I have argued previously are the result of certain linguistic misunderstandings that are either cynically or idealistically perpetuated); and so we are brought to the point where this clash of civilizations—which in one important sense is a clash between theocratic Islamism and the west, but in another, more crucial sense, is a clash between the west and its own structural thinking, brought on by years of insinuation into our philosophy of what is, at root, collectivist thought that privileges the interpreter of an action over the necessary primacy of intent and agency and personal responsibility to the communicative chain—could conceivably become manifest over something so seemingly trivial as the right to satirize.
Whew! Only it seems it isn’t really a clash of civilizations at all, is it? Nor can it be attributed to mush-headed leftists and their relativistic po-mo collectivism. It turns out there are western nations that actually have laws against “insulting religious beliefs.” And in the case of Jane’s satirical blackface graphic the “collectivist thought that privileges the interpreter of an action over the necessary primacy of intent” was used as a bludgeon against her by “individualist” conservatives even though her intent was obviously not racist.
After all, we had Darkblack’s, the artist’s, intent right out there in black and white explaining his “intent” so Malkin and her followers should have had no problem understanding what it was:
As the composer of the work in question, allow me to make some broader points clearer. This will be my last word on the subject, but all are free to debate further, of course. Lieberman has attempted to activate a voting demographic that his strategists believe will aid him in his quest.
To this end, he has imported a figure, Bill Clinton, who has standing with the American black community, and has repeatedly asserted his personal credentials as one who has worked on behalf of that community.Yet Lieberman has engaged in race baiting (with the Lamont flyer) as a cynical attempt to game this demographic, and he has engaged in other activities which cast doubtful shadows upon this allegiance.
Thus, in my opinion, Lieberman is pretending to be something that he is not for personal gain, exactly like the vile caucasian minstrel show performers of Vaudeville. And so my artist’s impression stands. If we as a people run from controversial imagery, we will never stop running. Better to unearth and deal with the unpleasant than to live in fear.
I am not vouching for the political effectiveness of the graphic or the wisdom of using it. American political campaigns are inherently and literally conservative (even for liberals) in that they always try to avoid unnecessary controversy. Blackface is a loaded image in American culture and causes an emotional reaction that is more appropriate to political art than to elective politics. I myself balked at showing the graphic on this site during the last days of the campaign when Michael Shaw of Bagnewsnotes featured it in his ad. Normally, I would have been happy to have it there as a point of discussion, but I didn’t want to add fuel to the fire. Political activism requires such considerations and it’s not always an easy call. (But then neither was the cartoons although to hear the right tell it, only a terrorist or traitor would have thought so.)
The hysterical rightwing response to the graphic, however, was a laughable exercise in rank hypocrisy. The same people who ranted for weeks about the Danish cartoons and the principle of free speech even when it is offensive were the first ones to wring their lacy designer dew rags about leftist racism and bad taste when the opportunity came along.
I actually partially agree with Goldstein (hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, ba dum pum) when he says some of this intolerance of controversial speech comes from the mistaken notion that the feelings of an interpreter of an action take primacy over the intent. (Hate crimes, for instance, are all about intent, although I doubt seriously that Goldstein agrees with me on that.) But the idea that it is the sole province of “collectivist” or liberal philosophy is ludicrous. It’s the province of dogmatic thinkers everywhere, but it occurs far more often on the right, I’m afraid, and particularly among religious fanatics of all stripes who seek to silence anyone who doesn’t adhere to their beliefs.
When I see the right wing blogosphere showing pictures of Madge on the cross and Jane’s Lieberman satire on all their blogs as a sign of solidarity with the western value of free speech as they did with the Danish cartoons, maybe I’ll take them seriously on that issue. Until then, they are just political cartoons themselves whose braying about western values are as meaningful as Mallard Fillmore.
And btw, in case anyone’s wondering what Goldstein had to say about the blackface incident, here’s a little taste:
Lamont’s victory speech video
If you look over his shoulder to the left and squint a bit, you’ll see Jane Hamsher in blackface sucking down a beer bong filled with Dos Equis. Or maybe that’s just the shadow of doom beginning its inexorable creep across a once proud nation.
He was just “kidding,” of course. He’s a very funny guy. Still, those lefty racists are uncivil and deserve everything they get.
Roy Edroso looks at the Ole Perfesser’s idea ‘o earthly heaven. All I can say is “Ah, damn you! God… damn you all to hell!”
Unfortunately, I linked to the wrong Roy masterpiece, which made my comment incomprehensible, (not an unusual event in any case.) I fixed the link but you should read all of his posts anyway.
Back in 2000, I had a standard argument for Naderites who claimed “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them” because they both are beholden to big business. I always said that you had to look at the coalitions that formed both parties and as long as Democrats had unions and women’s groups and environmentalists etc in their coalition, their big business ties would be mitigated and there would be better legislation produced. I was wrong.
Matt Stoller has been doing a series of posts over the last few months about how Washington really works and it sobered me up quite a bit. He has a new installment, here. It’s not that there’s not a dimes worth of difference between them, it’s that they are corruptly symbiotic and that symbiosis is mostly enabled by “bipartisan” players like Lieberman and the revolving door of lobbyists.
Stoller describes the way the right works in the post, but I think we are all at least fairly familiar with their style. It’s how the left works that is mind-blowing:
When a bill is introduced, a network of consultants, most of whom have corporate clients, begin to chatter about how taking a liberal position could weaken the Democratic Party. This is supplemented with a strong PR strategy by right-wing temporary coalition groups who put out networks of surrogates and ads to create a powerfully framed environment. Then business lobbyists come and visit Congressional offices, and make threats, attempt legislative bribes, or put out false but extremely persuasive pieces of information. There is often little real counterpressure, because liberal single issue groups have decided not to hold politicians accountable and do not cooperate with each other on issues not directly related to their vertical.
Within the Democratic party, resisting a bill is an exercise in holding the caucus together. The long minority status of the Democratic Party has allowed the development of bad faith actors within the caucus, who cut deals with right-wing groups and sabotage any possibility of resistance. Al Wynn is one such actor; Joe Lieberman is another. On key vote after key vote, these actors have sabotaged the progressive position through fake bipartisanship. It’s no surprise that Lieberman’s former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Enron; Lieberman himself is responsible for many of the corporate accounting scandals over the years because of his embrace of various financial lobbies.
One irony of the Lieberman race is that all the single-issue groups have endorsed Lieberman, and if you look at donations, so have the lobbyists. Indeed, this isn’t a fight between ‘the left’ and ‘the right’ as it is traditionally defined, since no one would put NARAL on the right or even in the center. This is about creating a disincentive towards bad faith actors and corrupt lobbyists on the left.
Stoller has had a very important insight in this series that I don’t think anyone has fully realized. The consultants who work for Democrats also work for coporations and they consistently pitch progressive ideas as being “too liberal” not necessarily because they are, but because these consultants have a conflict of interest that either makes them unable to see things clearly — or that makes them corrupt. In any case, they are giving bad advice to the Democratic party and it’s resulted in nice fat paychecks for them. Serving the public, not so much.
This brings me to the special interests in whom I had placed so much faith to counter such corruption. I had resisted joining in the critique of these groups because I thought they had some basis for playing both sides over the long term. But I thought they knew which side their bread was really buttered on, even so. Apparently not. Stoller describes them as having been co-opted by the corrupt system and lazily enjoying the fruits of the spoils like everyone else. I have to admit that even the most generous view shows they have lost sight of their own goals.
NARAL’s continued endorsement of Lieberman is a case in point. I will bet money that if Lieberman wins the race as an independent with a majority of Republican votes, within his term he is going to change his stance on abortion. It’s obvious that he is uncomfortable with the dissonance between being a social conservative and pro-choice politician, and he’s been feeling around for an argument to justify it for years. He’s the most likely pro-choice Senator in the country to switch. If NARAL thinks they can keep him on the reservation because they’ve been loyal to him, they obviously don’t know who they’re dealing with — or no longer care.
So, what to do? I quoted this comment by Matt Yglesias before about the role of the progressive blogosphere and the more I think about it the more interesting I find it:
The great benefit of the blogosphere is that it isn’t really an “interest group”; it’s more like an old-style membership organization (or a series of such organizations) whose existence used to do something to check what’s now become the out-of-control influence of business groups over the policy process.
I think the netroots and the blogosphere will end up performing many functions and I don’t know exactly where its influence will be most effective. But stepping into the breach and going after the system itself, from the outside, and functioning as the democratic check on the power of big money is one obvious area where we might be effective. It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it.
Stoller and Chris Bowers, Rick Jacobs and Joel Wright wrote a campaign memo based upon their extensive polling after the Busby loss in CA-50. I looked closely at the polling data and it’s fascinating stuff. They went very deep and came up with some results that are quite surprising. But its conclusions feel, at a gut level, like common sense to me, uncomplicated and obvious — and you hear nothing like it from the Democratic consultants.
I would recommend that everyone read this memo to get a sense of just how different these ideas are from what you hear coming from the campaign shops out of Washington. And if you agree that it is on the money then perhaps we can think of some ways to get this in the hands of candidates and their advisors. They should, at the very least, be exposed to these ideas.
I’ve long wondered why the insiders not only come to incorrect conclusions based on the data but how their political instincts became completely ossified. Stoller’s posts on this subject have finally offered an explanation.
In all the hoopla last week about TNR writer Elspeth Reeve’s tribute to Ann Coulter, I missed this very interesting debate among Ezra,Shakespeare’s Sister and Echidne about why there aren’t any firebreathing liberal female hacks. It’s an interesting topic and I urge you to check out all the arguments. (Echidne’s title alone is worth it.)
I’m not going to delve into all the socio-political implications of the Coulter argument. These fine writers cover the topic better than I can. I will just say that my view is that the right chooses certain figures for two very particular reasons — the first is camera friendliness and the second is counter-intuitiveness.
They promote good looking women because sex sells, the networks prefer it, the world is run by horny men, blah, blah blah. Whatever the reasons, that’s a fact. In the media, (except for the pooh-bahs of the male DC punditocrisy) looks matter.
It’s the second that’s interesting and both Shakes and Echidne hit upon it in their posts. The right puts forth attractive female snakes like Coulter and Malkin because they can carry the white, male conservative message without the baggage of being a white male. They know their repulsive rhetoric just doesn’t sound as objectionable coming from the mouth of a nice looking young woman. If you can mix in race too, as Malkin does, you’ve got a winner.
It worked very well during the Clinton years when you’d be blinded by the reflections off the platinum locks of the Barbizon School of former Prosecutors alumni who populated every shout fest. These rightwing women would go on the cable shows and wave their painted talons in front of their faces like lace fans decrying the president for sexualizing the culture with his allegedly crooked genitalia. The whole country sat riveted in a way they never would have if it had been nothing but hairy middle aged men talking about sex on television every night. These ladies could both moralize and sizzle and poor Lanny Davis just sat there like a bowl of overcooked macaroni while they ran circles around him.
The right understands what media wants and they give it to them. And while they are giving it to them, they go against type to innoculate themselves against attacks and soften the message by having it delivered by an unexpected source.
I think the Democrats should do the same thing in reverse. They need to toughen their message and innoculate themselves against attacks that they are too soft. They should find and train attractive males (preferably with military or sports experience) to make the case for liberal politics. Go against type and you flummox the other side.
This should not be taken as a slam on any liberal female spokespeople. I think there should be many more of them out there arguing politics with passion and fire. But since the Democratic party is already considered women friendly — and because strong liberal rhetoric coming from a female’s mouth is not counterintuitive — I think the Ann Coulter positions on the left are better filled by handsome, big-mouthed, funny liberal guys to be effective.
Think Paul Hackett.
Update: Speaking of Hackett, here’s some lefty firebreathing for yah:
Along with similarly concerned friends, neighbors and colleagues, I am starting a new project called Operation Ohio to sound the alarm to the threat of the theocratic political movement here in Ohio.
This concerns all Americans not only because this movement has roots in all states across America, but because Ohio will determine the direction of our country in 2008.
I need your help to get the project started.
Here is the problem as I see it.
In Ohio and across the country, leaders of a political movement opposed to basic principles of American democracy seek to create a “Christian nation.” While claiming up and down they do not want a theocracy, their acts, associations and the words used among themselves prove otherwise. They have spent the past thirty years developing an elaborate grassroots infrastructure while the rest of us moderate Ohioans and Americans have functioned in a “business as usual” manner. Some call those who propel the movement “religious extremists”, or “religious radicals”, others call them the “Religious Right”, “theocrats” or “Christian supremacists” but whatever we call them, we must in the end agree on the threat they pose to our constitutional republic as we know it. We know, for example, that they oppose the constitutional separation of church and state and support religiously-motivated government intervention into our private lives — think Terri Schiavo — while championing the diversion of taxpayer funds to advance their theocratic goals.
In an attempt to mirror the disproportionate response exhibited by Israel in the Lebanon invasion, the rightwing is now whipping itself into a rich creamy head of outrage froth over leftwingers! attacking Zionist entertainers!
I didn’t know Bernie Mac, Don Johnson, Serena Williams and Vivica Fox were Zionists?
Remember the story about this anti-Hamas, anti-Hezbollah, anti-terror ad that was published in the Los Angeles Times on Thursday and signed by 84 Hollywood stars, directors, studio bosses and media moguls?
Well, now the “Zionists” are under attack!
And who is this brave blogger leading a letter writing attack against these Zionist bastards? Is it our Dark Lord Kos or Atrios: Bestower of Wankerhood? Maybe it’s Glenn Greenwald – The Man with Two Countries or Jane Hamsher and her Poodles of Doom ?
I confess, I just scanned the names on that incomprehensible ad and saw the usual tiny cadre of Hollywood rightwingers and a bunch of studio execs and wondered why the big conservo-kahuna wasn’t among them. Oops. I guess I know now, huh? My bad.
Oh well, I guess missing out on the big letter writing jihad will go down as just another missed opportunity for a godless liberal like me to offer aid and comfort to my muslim fundamentalist brothers. Maybe next time.
Wow. Here’s an interesting new way of framing the national security debate:
A Pew Research Center poll released Thursday found “no evidence that terrorism is weighing heavily on voters — just 2 percent cite that as the issue they most want to hear candidates discuss, far fewer than the number mentioning education, gas prices, or health care.” The center continued: “And while roughly a third of Americans (35 percent) say they are very concerned that if Democrats gain control of Congress, they will weaken terrorist defenses, even more (46 percent) express great concern that Republicans will involve the U.S. in too many overseas military missions if the GOP keeps its congressional majorities.”
I know it’s hard to believe, but I just heard Morton Kondrake repeating that in very grave tones on The Beltway Boys while Fred Barnes fluttered about like the Madwoman of Chaillot babbling about polls being meaningless. It definitely hit a nerve.
It’s a good question. How many wars do the Republicans think we should be fighting? And should the people who got us into the useless, unnecessary cock-up in Iraq really be the ones to decide?
I wrote a little teaser in my last post about the Republicans’ “cunning plan” to deal with the inevitable reminders of their disasterous handling of Katrina. It’s actually not very cunning and certainly not original.
One word: macaca.
A reader reminded me of a post I wrote last September during the Katrina aftermath called “Dusting off the Manual.” In that post, I noted that TIME magazine was reporting the administration had a three point plan to come back after the debacle which included ginning up the base with tax cuts and votes on embryonic stem cells.
There’s one other little way to gin up base conservative voters that we can already see developing on the shout fest and gasbags shows. But this is one that the leakers know very well mustn’t be mentioned to writers for Time magazine. They are already dusting off their old tried and true southern strategy manual and after more than 40 years it’s like a favorite old song — they just started regurgitating their coded talking points without missing a beat. They’ll need to. This happened deep in Red territory.
On This Weak, George Will basically said that the problem in New Orleans is that blacks fuck too much. Or rather, the problem of the “underclass” can be traced to so many “out of wedlock births.” I think it’s pretty clear he wasn’t suggesting that abortions be made available to poor women. (If Bill Clinton thought he neutralized that line with welfare reform, he was sadly mistaken.) As far as the right is concerned, it’s all about that old racist boogeyman “dependency.” Last night on the McLaughlin Group, Pat Buchanan was foaming at the mouth about “the welfare state.” He was in his element, getting his “we’re gonna take our cities block by block” Pitchfork Pat mojo back. These are code words. They aren’t about class — although they will certainly claim that’s what they’re talking about. These are code words for blacks. (And if you want to understand how it’s affected our ability to create a decent liberal government, read this.)
Immigration had already reared its ugly head out of nowhere, and now this. I believe the Republicans already see the elections of 06 and 08 as an opportunity to revert to a tried and true code saturated “law ‘n order” strategy. The War on Terrorism has been losing its juice for sometime — and Iraq is nothing but an embarrassment now. It’s time to go back to what works.
For those who think that we are in a post racist world because George W. Bush appointed blacks to his cabinet, think again. The modern Republican Party was built on the back of an enduring national divide on the issue of race. George Bush may not personally be racist (or more likely not know he’s racist) but the party he leads has depended on it for many years. The coded language that signals tribal ID has obscured it, but don’t kid yourselves. It is a party that became dominant by exploiting the deep cultural fault of the mason dixon line.
The post went on to discuss at some length the history of race and its implications for politics after Katrina; if you are interested in such arid subjects you might enjoy reading it in full. But I think there are elements of the above observation that we are seeing manifested in what we see lately from Connecticut to Virginia: race baiting.
The master stroke is that the Republicans have managed to get Democratic useful idiots to do their dirty work for them. I was quite startled to see Lieberman use crude racist appeals in Connecticut. It seemed odd and out of place, particularly for Lieberman who has always leaned so heavily on his early involvement in the civil rights movement. It’s certainly not something Democrats have done in many years, even in primaries. But he ran with it hard in the last days of the campaign: his lobbyist friend Richard Goodstein screamed at Lamont at press events to say whether he was a “Sharpton” Democrat or a “Clinton” Democrat and Lieberman himself repeated the phrase. This plays right into Rove’s hands quite elegantly, Clinton being known as the “first black president” and all. Either Lieberman has internalized rightwing racebaiting tactics or he was being advised by his new GOP advisors before the end of the primary.
This was followed by useful idiot number two: Marty Peretz, who added Maxine Waters to the mix of reprehensible blacks who backed Ned Lamont. Again, I find it quite odd that the subtext of this Connecticut contest keeps coming up racial. Something is in the air and I don’t know if Lieberman and Peretz are just breathing it and don’t understand their own racist motivations or if they are literally taking Rove’s advice. What I do know is that they are playing the tune the Republicans want them to play. In the most watched race of the 2006 campaign, racial politics are front and center — and there are no GOP fingerprints anywhere near it. Sweet.
But this racist undercurrent is coming from several directions and serves several purposes. You’ll remember back in March the wingnuts put out some trash talk about impeachment in a naked ploy to intimidate Democrats into backing off a campaign built around holding the Republicans accountable. But there was more to it:
Republicans, worried that their conservative base lacks motivation to turn out for the fall elections, have found a new rallying cry in the dreams of liberals about censuring or impeaching President Bush.
[..]
Brian Jones, a Republican spokesman, said the e-mail messages generated a higher response than anything the party had sent in several months, including bulletins about the Supreme Court confirmations.
”Clearly on our side it is something that is energizing our base a little bit,” Mr. Jones said.
”This is not about getting things done,” he added. ”This is raw partisan politics.”
[…]
Mr. Weyrich, for his part, acknowledged that the prospect of impeachment seemed far-fetched at the moment. ”It looked bizarre, too, when Father Robert F. Drinan and a handful of others, such as John Conyers Jr. in 1972 similarly were planning for the impeachment of President Nixon,” he wrote in his newsletter. ”When the moment of truth came, they were ready.”
(I guess the impeachment of President Clinton has been disappeared from history…)
Brendan Nyhan noted at the time that the impeachment talk was absurd:
Does anyone actually think the House Democrats would impeach Bush on a narrow party-line vote knowing they will fail to convict in the Senate? Barring some sort of blockbuster revelation, this seems improbable. From Weyrich’s perspective, of course, the facts are immaterial; the point is to get the base motivated, and the prospect of a Speaker Pelosi-led impeachment might be quite effective.
This isn’t just about Pelosi, though (as much as they demonize her, as well.) This is also about the prospect of “certain” Democrats being in charge of important committees. And none other than Joe Klein was there to spell it all out for the cognoscenti and make it clear that the Republicans, as always, have a good point:
The inevitability of race as a subliminal issue in the campaign became obvious as I watched House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, the personification of fluttery uncertainty, trying to defend Representative John Conyers on Meet the Press a few weeks ago… the ugly truth is that Conyers is a twofer: in addition to being foolishly incendiary, he is an African American of a certain age and ideology, easily stereotyped by Republicans. He is one of the ancient band of left-liberals who grew up in the angry hothouse of inner-city, racial-preference politics in the 1960s, a group “more likely to cry ‘racism’ and ‘victimization’ than the new generation of black politicians,” a member of the Congressional Black Caucus told me.
[…]
Rangel would be one of the most powerful Democrats in the new Congress, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. He is regarded as more mainstream than Conyers, well versed in tax and entitlement policies, but he has had an unfortunate tendency to shoot off his mouth in the past. He has questioned interracial adoption, and has compared colleagues who opposed tax breaks for minority broadcasters to Hitler. After Hurricane Katrina, Rangel compared Bush to Bull Connor, the public-safety commissioner of Birmingham, Ala., who attacked peaceful civil rights marchers with dogs and fire hoses in the 1960s.
[…]
Conyers and Rangel are embarrassments, but there is nothing the Democrats can do about them — and they are certainly no more objectionable than any number of right-wing extremists who fester in Congress. But it’s not too late for Hastings to remove himself from the line of fire and make clear his support for Harman as ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.
Conservative Dem Martin Frost wrote an article for Fox News the other day in which he did a rundown on all the incoming chairmen if Dems win a majority. It’s quite an impressive list. He ended his piece this way:
The sky may fall on the Republicans once this group becomes chairmen but it won’t be for racial or ideological reasons. It will be because they will know what to do from day one.
He knows very well what any close observer can see — they are already playing the race card.
Karl Rove and Joe Lieberman’s BFF, Marty Peretz, said it quite clearly: “I’m appalled by some of the people who would become head of Congressional committees.” After his repeated comments about race hustlers, I think it’s pretty clear what he’s getting at and it isn’t a problem with John Dingell. (The General sent Peretz a fine suggestion to bring back “Birth of a Nation” with a Toby Keith soundtrack to get the word out. I wonder if he’s heard back.)
And then there’s Senator George Felix “Macaca” Allen. He’s just a stone racist, but I think it’s worth noting nonetheless that he knew he could play the race card among his supporters in “the real world” of Virginia. You didn’t have to know what “macaca” meant to know what he was saying (and I would guess that more than a few of his supporters know very well what it meant.) His face in that video shows a barely leashed anger, the tight smile, the sarcastic edge — and his supporters all got the point, laughing and tittering at his nasty little aside. Nobody has asked what purpose it served for Allen to point out this guy videotaping the event in the first place. I assume Allen’s supporters thought he was with the campaign not with Webb, and even if they did I doubt they would have thought much about it. But Allen, either out of personal pique or political calculation (or both) brought this lone dark-skinned person to the attention of his audience and identified him with the opposition. He did that for a reason and I suspect it’s because the word has gone forth that race is on the table in this election. (The fact that he’s even more braindead than Bush is what did him in — he pulled it on a guy who was videotaping him. Jesus.)
This is happening because the Republicans are on the run and they have to pull out all the stops to GOTV. Mostly, however, I think it’s an attempt to neutralize Katrina. Let’s face it, there is nothing the Republicans can do to improve their image when it comes to their performance last September. It was a national disgrace and we are going to relive the whole awful scene in living color on the first anniversary. Their only hope is to stoke enough under-the-radar racial resentment to mitigate the damage. I suspect they have been thinking about this for the past year and carefully laying out all the little racist signposts we’ve been seeing over the past few months.
Katrina remains very damaging for Republicans unless they can find some way to kick in the racist lizard brain. They are very good at tickling the primitive, tribal side of human nature — in fact, that’s all they are good at. Subtly and not so subtly playing the race card is one of their specialties and I think it’s pretty much all they have left in their hand to play this time out. (Immigration is another racial card for this cycle although I think it’s really aimed at ’08.)
The question will be whether there are still enough of the old school racists left who will recoil at the idea of the uppity Conyers and Rangel in power. And it remains to be seen whether they can find a way to touch once again that deep, unexamined part of the American psyche that Katrina revealed — not hatred, but fear of African Americans. Fear, after all, is the GOP’s stock in trade.
I doubt it will work. I think we have come too far for racism of that kind to last beyond a single moment. It reared its hideous head briefly during the crisis but I don’t think Rove can bring it back with standard racist appeals. His problem is that it’s all he’s got.
Keep your eyes open, though, for signs of this phenomenon. It’s clear to me that this is the GOP subtext of the election. It’s quite amazing when you think about it. Bush ran as the Republican who was beyond racial politics, known for his outreach to Hispanics and African Americans. But when it comes down to it, racism is really the heart and soul of the modern Republican party, the essence of their electoral strategy and the underlying sentiment that drives their appeals to “tradition” and “religion.” We’ll see if they can crank up the old macaca machine and make it work for them one more time.
Update: in case anyone needs to be reminded of the kind of person who will be reached by these appeals, Sadly No! does a little down home fisking of one GOP stalwart.
It occurs to me that this election season is going to be characterized by two competing September pageants and whoever handles them most skillfully will have the edge in November.
We already know the Republicans are running on 9/11. They are undoubtedly gearing up for a five year anniversary commemoration in which the subtext, as always, will be portrayal of Republicans as being strong enough and tough enough to keep the country safe compared to the vacuous and naive Democratic ninnies.
The Republicans are counting on the fifth anniversary to remind people of Bush’s Bullhorn moment, which was sold as a moment of potent muscular leadership when in fact it was what he had been training for since his days on the sidelines at Andover prep:
We’ll see if the nation has finally seen through Karl Rove’s deft imagery to the callow little cheerleader that always lurked, like black and white pentimento, beneath the iconic picture.
That brings us to the other big pageant this fall. A few days before 9/11 we are going to memorialize another day of national horror: the death of a huge swathe of an American city, while the president and John McCain shared a few laughs over birthday cake:
Obviously the Democrats will shine the light on Katrina as the iconic example of Bush’s mismanagement but the question will be whether the white house can control the way the press reports it. My bet is the media will want to go back and show plenty of footage of themselves down in New Orleans. They were in the middle of the story for a few days reporting on the appalling conditions when the government seemed paralyzed. They are going to want to revisit their glory days.
They will also undoubtedly do a bunch of “where are they now” stories and investigations into what has happened in the past year. I believe it’s going to be very bad for the Republicans to be reminded of their lowest moment, just before the election.
But they are going to fight back, never fear, and they have a cunning plan. More on that in my next post…
Meanwhile, let’s not forget that the common denominator is all of this is Bush’s reflexive lying about everything:
Bush didn’t ask a single question during the final government-wide briefing the day before Katrina struck on Aug. 29 but assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: “We are fully prepared”.
WASHINGTON — In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms, federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could breach levees, risk lives in New Orleans’ Superdome and overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage of the briefings.
Bush didn’t ask a single question during the final government-wide briefing the day before Katrina struck on Aug. 29 but assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: “We are fully prepared.”
Six days of footage and transcripts obtained by The Associated Press show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster.
Linked by secure video, Bush’s bravado on Aug. 29 starkly contrasts with the dire warnings his disaster chief and a cacophony of federal, state and local officials provided during the four days before the storm.
He was leading a cheer, not leading the government, and that has always been the fatal misunderstanding of the man’s presidency.
The Haditha atrocity investigation is looking more and more like a funhouse mirror every day. TBOGG notices that the fine fellow who is suing John Murtha turns out to be suspiciously involved in the possible destruction of evidence in the case. And then there is this from ABB1, which is almost unbelievable:
August 18, Reuters:
Probe suggests Marines hid Haditha evidence: NYT … The defense officials were quoted as saying the report also found commanders had created a climate that minimized the importance of Iraqi lives, particularly in Haditha, where insurgent attacks were rampant, The New York Times said.
Lt. Gen. James Mattis, the new top Marine general in U.S. Central Command, is due to decide on whether charges are warranted, officials said this week.
Lt. Gen. James Mattis, who commanded Marine expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq, made the comments Tuesday during a panel discussion in San Diego, California.
“Actually it’s quite fun to fight them, you know. It’s a hell of a hoot,” Mattis said, prompting laughter from some military members in the audience. “It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right up there with you. I like brawling.
“You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil,” Mattis said. “You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”
One of ABB1’s comenters points out:
I see he took command on Monday, one day before Bush’s recent “why don’t Iraqis appreciate everything we’ve done for them?” meeting at the Pentagon.
This is just in keeping with Bush administration policy that all the most outrageous of his commanders and failed advisors must be promoted and commended. Why just this month the most illustrious of all military fuck-ups, General Geoffrey Miller, retired from the Army with a Distinguished Service Medal,”for exceptionally commendable service in a position of great responsibility.” Hilzoy at Obsidion Wings commemorated the event back on August 2.
I have written about him extensively over the years. His role was never adequately examined in the press. He was an artillery officer with no experience in interrogation who was called in to do some leg-breaking in Guantanamo when the former commandant refused to torture the prisoners. And when he showed himself to be sufficiently capable of overseeing a torture regime there he was sent to Abu Ghraib to show them how it was done. For some unknown reason, he kept leaving rotten apples in his wake everywhere he went.
I have a sneaking suspicion that General Mattis will find that bad apples are spoiling his bushel too. And nobody will think a thing about the fact that the guy who declared that “it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them” is ruling on a report that found “commanders had created a climate that minimized the importance of Iraqi lives.” That’s just SOP in Bushworld.
Update: Hilzoy at Obsidion Wings has a long post up about General Mattis based upon Thomas Ricks’ description of Mattis in Fiasco, which I haven’t read. It indicates that Mattis, at the very least, is a much more complicated figure than Miller and probably doesn’t deserved to be lumped in with him. His comments are strange and inexplicable coming from the man whom Hilzoy describes. I can’t account for it.
But the point still stands, I think. For instance, let’s take a look at General Jerry Boykin from the Carpetbagger Report:
How can we forget our good friend Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence? As you may recall, eyebrows were raised around the world when NBC discovered that Bush had asked a man to coordinate our military intelligence in the war on terror who also happened to be an anti-Muslim religious zealot.
Among Boykin’s more colorful remarks, which were delivered in uniform, included the notion that our enemy isn’t Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, but rather, “The enemy is a spiritual enemy. He’s called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan.” In explaining why terrorists hate us, Boykin said it’s because “we’re a Christian nation,” which will defeat our enemies “if we come against them in the name of Jesus.”
Boykin also recalled a Muslim soldier in Somalia who believed Allah would protect him in battle against the U.S. “Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his,” Boykin said. “I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol.” When the Muslim soldier was eventually captured, Boykin claims to have told the man that he “underestimated our God.”
Boykin also routinely tells audiences that God, not the voters, chose President Bush: “Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he’s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.”
The good news is that George Felix Allen’s attempt to have him promoted again has been stalled out by John Warner. But he’s still the Pentagon’s deputy undersecretary for intelligence. When he retires he too will undoubtedly receive accolades and commendation despite the fact that he was found guilty of violating military guidelines and is cleqly nutty as a fruitcake. They certainly have no problem keeping him in a vital intelligence role despite the fact that he thinks George W. Bush was ordained by God and I find that very disturbing.
