Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Santorum Whistling Dixie

I took a leisurely stroll around downtown Blogovia this morning and came across a number of interesting discussions. David Niewert, as always, has tons of good stuff on Orcinus, but I was very intrigued by his post on the Santorum flap and a succeeding one in which he responds to Richard Einhorn’s comments about how the gay rights issue is going to play in the election.

Calpundit, who has previously asserted his belief that this is a good social/cultural issue for the Dems, cites a Harris poll that shows a vast majority of Americans are supportive of gay rights in general. Niewert also demonstrates this in his examination of the voting patterns on various gay rights issues over the past decade. Using my personal rule of thumb, the free market of popular culture, it seems clear that gayness is no longer marginalized, particularly among the young, but also among middle class women and upper middle class people of both sexes. (You get this by observing television commercials on programs that treat gay issues positively or feature gay characters– marketers do a lot of research on demographics.) So, it’s obvious that there has been a sea change in attitudes.

Niewert posits the idea that the Trent Lott affair and the hesitancy in supporting Santorum’s actual beliefs, means Rove has made the calculation that he has to appear to have deep-sixed his bigot base in favor of more socially liberal suburban moms in order to win. (Einhorn agrees, also suggesting that this “wink-wink” strategy with respect to both black and gays is pretense, but may also be designed to appeal to Hispanic voters.)

This leads me to a very interesting post on the subject by the prolific J/Mac Diva on Silver Rights in which she challenges this conventional wisdom by examining various comments by those you would expect to agree but instead are sure that because of their stands on race and gay rights, the Democrats are the likely losers.

So, what’s really going on?

Back when Atrios was all over Trent Lott I did a bunch of research on the neo-confederates. Here we have a movement that claims it is all about their “southern heritage” and denies any accusation of racism. Their web-sites don’t use the “n” word and they try (and fail) to contain their hatred of African-Americans by bleating unconvincingly about history and ancestors and birthright, blah,blah,blah.

They hammer about affirmative action and highlight crime statistics and discuss the horror of a breakdown of American values and all the other unsubtle appeals to racism that we see throughout the Southern wing of the mainstream GOP. But, what you don’t see (and I’m not talking about full-on white supremacy neo-Nazi garbage) in the neo-confederate movement is no holds barred racist language. They have learned to use code words because even stone racists realize that it is no longer ok to spew their unadorned hatred in public. So, they go on and on about the illustrious history of the antebellum south and how special it all is.

But, strangely, I found that they also spend a vast amount of time spewing the most vile commentary about gays and lesbians. Who knew this was such a huge part of America’s Southern heritage? These confederate historical associations are so obsessed with the “gay rights” agenda that you can only conclude that the “threat” of homosexuality was the most hotly debated issue in the pre-1860 south. Why else would these benign heritage societies spend such an inordinate amount of time and energy detailing the dangers of the “gay lifestyle?”

Unless, of course, discussing gays and lesbians as if they are less than human is a convenient way of signaling your bigot credentials in all things. Then, it makes sense for these historical organizations to take a bizarre stand against gays, while proclaiming their mission is a simple desire to celebrate their heritage. Trent Lott broke the rules. Santorum didn’t.

None of this negates Niewert’s central argument, which is that Rove is trying to woo two constituencies with completely opposing values, but it exposes Rove’s dilemma. Certainly, the anti-gay agenda is popular with the Christian right (many of whom are also neo-confederates.) But, he knows he cannot win without also placating all of his bigoted base and appealing to a fair number of suburban swing women. Therefore, the Democrats must hammer that wedge by associating the heinous racism of the neo-confederates with hatred of gays and lesbians – something that shouldn’t be too hard, because it is absolutely true. In fact, it is a conscious, Atwateresque tactic, but one which has outlived its usefulness in a closely divided electorate.

Democrats simply have to stop talking about “programs” all the time and speak in bigger terms. In this case, they must reach those suburban women who are their natural constituency on these social issues by using language of family, psychology and community. They need to say that “traditional American values” means the freedom to be who you are (a huge majority of Americans do NOT believe that they have the right to pass judgments on other people’s personal lives.) They need to say “Lott/Santorum” like it’s one word, over and over again. They need to remind audiences that every gay person has a mom and a dad and siblings and friends and co-workers, just like they do.

This is Oprah’s audience and they need to make an explicit appeal to them based upon their values and they need to speak in that Oprah language.

Karl Rove knows that his biggest problem is that his party’s philosophy is completely incoherent. If he can keep people focused on Bush’s codpiece and fear (or fear of Bush’s codpiece), he can eke out a victory. The Democrats have to attack along all of his fault lines. This is one of them.

“Here’s grace and a codpiece; that’s a wise man and a fool.”

I posted a little picture a few weeks back showing a woman in a red dress with a sign that said “W” is a Hottie. Lo and behold I get an e-mail the other day from the presidential groupie herself:

Hey Digby!
I am the so called “red stater” with the “w is a
hottie” poster. Where did you see it? I’m sure you were nowhere
within a hundred miles of someone that would support our troops and
our president. BTW- “W” IS a hottie! I would have hated to
see Al Gore in that flight suit yesterday. ; )

Jessica

I didn’t reply. I thought it was sweetly…irrelevant. However, yesterday I realized that I had to go back and take another look at that sizzling million dollar moment when I read this titillating little piece in that bastion of right wing testosterone, the Wall Street Journal. GOP women are veritably oozing with admiration for the suddenly potent POTUS.

I had the most astonishing thought last Thursday. After a long day of hauling the kids to playdates and ballet, I turned on the news. And there was the president, landing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, stepping out of a fighter jet in that amazing uniform, looking–how to put it?–really hot. Also presidential, of course. Not to mention credible as commander in chief. But mostly “hot,” as in virile, sexy and powerful.

My goodness. It sounds like she needs a cold shower. I think maybe it’s time to get out those old well thumbed National Reviews from the Clinton era. This kind of thing can get away from you in a hurry.

sexual passion is one of the most powerful and disruptive forces we ever encounter, one capable of inducing irrationality and self-delusion on an epic scale; and [that] it takes great effort, by individuals and societies, to channel anarchic lusts into civilized patterns of living : Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review Issue: Feb 8, 1999

Sadly, she seems to be a little bit unsatisfied with her own man, which I can only interpret as 60’s style moral relativism. (And, what about her poor children? Is this the example that Republicans wish to set for their kids? This truly is too shocking.)

But a business suit just doesn’t do it the way a flight suit does. In the course of this I peeked over at my husband, the banker. He was in his third month of reading a book about the Six Day War and didn’t seem to notice.

Ouch.

The man uses overwhelming military force to vanquish a truly evil foe, facing down balking former “allies,” and he is not taken seriously as a foreign-policy president. He out top-guns the Hollywood version, and all the media can talk about is the impending campaign commercial.

Some so-called men read books. Real men use overwhelming force. Oh baby.

Actually, the media showed the same enthusiasm for Dubya’s high water costume as a bunch of 12 year old girls who win front row tickets to a Justin Timberlake concert. Pretty much like this woman.

Our lubricious scribe went on to interview some of her fellow deprived Manhattanites:

“He’s a hottie. No doubt about it. Really a hottie. Why haven’t I noticed this before? He looks so much better than Michael Douglas in that movie we saw,” comparing the tired, indifferent megastar of “The American President” to the totally present leader of the free world.”

“Hot? SO HOT!!!!! THAT UNIFORM!”

“I think he is actually protecting me and my sons, and I find that attractive in a man.”

“Oh God, yes,” she said. “I mean, that swagger. George Bush in a pair of jeans is a treat to watch.”

Yeah, baby!

She admits that many liberal women find Bush revolting.

Many of them still cite Bill Clinton and his allegedly penetrating intellect as more appealing.

Liberals make such a fetish of intellect. But who cares how smart you are if you can’t make a decision and follow through?

Damned right. What kind of a fetish is intellect, anyway? Now, form fitting military costumes with zippers everywhere or a cowboy hat and high heeled boots (or maybe, just for a treat, a pair of fishnet stockings and a little French apron…)

She begrudgingly admits that the oh-so-boring intellectual Clinton was sorta, kinda known for his “swordsmanship” (as she proudly claims Ronald Reagan was in his sexier, sentient days.) But, it wasn’t the right kind, you see.

I recall reading an extended colloquy about hip women having dreams about sleeping with the president. And then there were all the women who did sleep with the president. Or whatever. Sex. Not quite sex. Frustrating, bad, unidirectional sex.

Sexual frustration has obviously muddled the poor dear’s mind because, inexplicably, she goes on to say “After all, the era was ushered in by Gennifer Flowers “writing” in Penthouse about Bill Clinton’s prodigious lovemaking talents…”

This squirming scribbler sounds like a woman who knows about such things as bad “unidirectional” sex. After all, she did work with Dan Quayle and William Kristol and her sad, flaccid, pin-striped husband is too busy “reading” to service his revved up Bushie.

The Clinton years must have been hell for these ladies. After all, Newt Gingrich is the reigning “swordsman” of the GOP and that is a sad, sad state of affairs (so to speak.)

Still, despite her completely transparent horniness she knows she must pay obeisance to Bennettesque pseudo virtue:

This was all, of course, demeaning, degrading, offensive to the high art of democratic self-governance–and highly entertaining. And of course the Bush people can’t let their more dignified version of it get out of hand.

I couldn’t agree more. The President strutting around in a costume that (how do I say this delicately?) exaggerates the presidential package to such an unbelievable degree that one cannot help but wonder if somebody mischievously switched his with one from the “Anchor’s Away” revue at Chippendales, is certainly dignified.

But, perhaps this is all part of a cunning plan:

Legend has it that Edward III, king of England from 1327-1377, had the codpiece of his armor enlarged to astounding proportions because he had heard that strength and military prowess were correlated with a man’s endowment. As he was in the midst of the Hundred Years’ War with the French at the time, it would not be surprising that he would try to seek any possible advantage available to him. He then ordered that the nobility and knights do the same to their armor. The legend goes on to say that the gullible French (from the nobility all the way down to the peasantry) were scared to death by the advance of the “well-equipped” men.

Can anyone doubt that the dastardly French were similarly intimidated when they saw this:

A Cod-piece can fool them all
Make them think you’re large
Even if you’re small
Just be sure you don’t fool yourself
For it’s still just imagination
And to be sure it works like a lure
And will raise a wench’s expectations
But have a care you have something there
Or the night will end in frustration

Projection Prediction

Seeing The Forest makes this bold prediction and I am willing to bet my copy of William Bennett’s “Witness To A Miracle: I Won More Than 8 Million Dollars Playing Slots” that he’s right.

Democrats on Display

I guess I’m all alone in my impression of the debate last night.

I thought Stephanopoulos was a complete asshole in his vain attempts at out-Gotcha-ing Tim Russert and particularly by baiting the candidates (which they should have ignored) into slamming each other for the entertainment of the Kewl Kidz. This guy used to actually believe in something but now he is so invested in Washington whoredom that he didn’t even care that since this debate would have no effect on his ratings he could have dropped the bored cynicism and just acted like a human being — or even a Democrat and patriot.

However, I was not disgusted or repelled by the candidates, which seems to be the prevailing critique. I was actually kind of confused by the fact that I was hearing Democrats speak about issues for 90 minutes without having to listen to canned 20 minute rebuttals from each of the same neocon think tank robots, or watch them be repeatedly interrupted by some puffy lipped, botoxed Alpha Girl who prefaces every sentence with “Considering this President’s enormous …uh… popularity, what makes you think you can …..”

It’s very early and almost nothing really counts right now; it’s like the first game of spring training. We don’t know yet how events are going to affect us or the other team. We’ve barely glimpsed the possibilities. But, I came away with some preliminary thoughts about how the primary campaign might shape our agenda.

I think the candidates well represent the spectrum of the party from liberal Kucinich to conservative Lieberman. Some of them are surprising. Sharpton, for instance, was glib and rhetorically effective. He has a way of making verbal connections and using humor that the other guys should study. Lieberman made a straight out case for electibility in the general, which I thought was odd coming from a politician who prides himself on his rectitude and integrity. It made it look as if he may have opportunistically taken his positions for (gasp) political reasons. A very strategic argument, coming from somebody like him. Odd.

Gephardt made a huge gamble on a big plan and threw health care right on the table as a big campaign issue. He made what sounded to me like a good practical argument by pointing out that his plan would not be opposed by the “Harry and Louise” special interests so it might actually…pass. He is a pro, maybe too much so, but good at explaining a complicated issue in plain terms.

The biggest surprise to me was Edwards who has fashioned for himself a fresh Democratic image with a traditional Democratic message. Using his trial lawyer credentials, he is positioning himself as an anti-corporate populist with what seems to be developing as a fairly strong critique of Bush’s foreign policy of unilateralism and failure of follow through. He’s betting on the Enron analogy. I happen to think that is one of the strongest messages we have and if Bush can tie his little Top Gun stunts in with the economy as they say they are, then a smart opposition candidate can tie Bush’s closeness to corporate pyramid schemes in with his failure to plan for a secure future in America and overseas. I’m going to look closer at Edwards (whom I had liked as a candidate until 9/11.) His Q rating is very high and in a world where a drunken fratboy deserter can be dressed up in costume and sold as a war hero, it’s clear that anything is possible with the right packaging.

I have followed the Kerry and Dean campaigns and they were both what I expected, although Kerry had a problem with his voice so he seemed a little bit weaker than usual. Dean has a Trumanesque pugnacious spirit and that has got to be very attractive to Democrats, who are starved for somebody to show some damned spine. Kerry, on the other hand, oozes Kennedyesque manly gravitas. Both men are very smart and could run rings around Junior in a debate (although I’d be extremely surprised if Rove allows that this time.) I like both of these guys.

Graham remains a cipher to me as a political personality and I simply don’t understand his foreign policy argument. Hezbollah is a dangerous group of terrorists (or “freedom fighters,” depending on where you sit on the issue.) But, they do not threaten the US any more than the IRA or the Basques threaten the US. And even if they did, I fail to see why we should give George W. Patton any more blank checks to wage war. If he wants to invade Syria, Spain or Ireland, let him please come back to congress and seek permission. That’s the way the system’s designed to work. Grahams argument doesn’t make sense and fairly reeks of absurd political positioning. The Democrats have to do better than that on foreign policy.

Kucinich and Mosely-Braun both represent the most liberal wing and are indispensible (well, Kucinich is — Mosely-Braun wasn’t very effective) in that they force the conservative and moderate Dems to make a winning case against what used to be considered fairly mainstream liberal goals. I would imagine that most of us, in our heart of hearts, recognize that health care is not a consumer item that people buy the way they buy a car (realizing they can’t afford that heart bypass, for instance, so they’ll settle for…dying.) If we want to have universal health care it’s absurd to pretend that it is a “market” ruled by rational self-interest. There is no relationship between rational self-interest and money when illness and death are at stake. Clearly, at the very least, we need to take for-profit insurance companies out of the business and probably need to go single payer to make it work. Kucinich is the only guy who could cop to that and it needs to stay on the table.

So, all in all, I found the debate quite instructive and rather than feeling disillusioned, I’m actually a little bit more enthusiastic. I would surely like to see Clark and Hart jump in with a couple of dynamite foreign policy arguments because I see difficult times ahead beating back “Mav” Bush and “Goose” Cheney on national security. But there is time for the candidates to develop these arguments.

I do not believe that George W. Bush is unbeatable. Yes, they are tarting him up like a war hero, but in reality he remains a stupid, shallow, reckless loose cannon whose adolescent ego may be in danger of interfering with Karl’s ability hold together the disparate and competing factions of his administration and his party.

For all of the staged hero worship and phony hagiography of this man, he is actually their single greatest weakness. We can beat him again.

Ponzi Politics

Zizka has a scorching series of rants called “12 Reasons Why I’m No Fun Anymore.” I particularly like number 10:

Why I’m No Fun X: Inside Players

A lot of people fall for weird scams of the Nigerian type. Some crook comes up to you and offers to let you in on his game. “At last!” you think. “I’m finally getting in on the action”. But you’re not. You think that someone else is being scammed, but it’s you.

Enron was that kind of scam. Up until a certain point, lots of people were making tons of money. The Republicans and many Democrats were on board, and nobody tried to stop it. In the end, a lot of people found out that they weren’t in on the action after all.

The Bush administration is running the same scam. They’ve got plenty of people convinced that they’re going to come out ahead. Their proposals are all carefully backloaded, so that by the time people figure out that they’ve been had, the game will be over.

In politics it’s suicide to complain about the electorate, but the electorate these days can really be morons sometimes. The chump electorate and the cheesy pimp media (see next) are the hand we’ve been dealt. I haven’t got a goddamn clue as to what to do about it.

.

We could try doing what the Republicans do. Say the words fraud, Enron and Bush in the same sentence over and over and over again until they are inextricably linked in the minds of half of the population. It worked with terrorism, Saddam and 9/11.

Whose World?

As with many things these last couple of weeks, I missed this wonderful essay by Julia at Sisyphus Shrugged on one woman’s liberal odyssey and her reluctant acceptance that we need the self-righteous bullies of the left. It is simply brilliant. And, for the many of you who likely read it back on the 29th, read it again. This is where we’re at folks. We do not have the luxury of marginalizing our best fighters in a world where the other side rules by sheer intimidation.

We’re So Good

Many nice people feel the need to remind those of us who opposed the Iraq invasion that freeing the Iraqi people is a good thing. I understand this, but I think it needs some examination.

(In any event, for any visiting freepers, I would just like to say that going forward, any discussion by me of foreign policy and war on this blog implicitly carries the disclaimer that I am happy that that bastard Saddam is gone, I believe that it is wonderful that the Iraqi people at least have a chance of a government of their choosing and of course, I support the troops and hate the Dixie Chicks.)

Under different circumstances, I would have supported deposing Saddam purely on the basis of his horrifying human rights record. However, as much as I agree that a free Iraq is a good thing, just as free North Korea or free China or free Sudan or free Tibet would be good things, I believe that allowing the Bushies to get away with using that argument is a mistake for all people who believe in human rights.

By agreeing that the ends justify the means in this case we are allowing them to pretend that the motivation of the US was always to free the Iraqi people (a fact which is clearly untrue since they haven’t even seen fit to free the Cuban people who live just 90 miles off our shores and whose exiles are a powerful political constituency.) Their arguments must be evaluated on their own terms by what they hoped to accomplish and what the results have been.

In that light, the best they can claim is that freeing the Iraqi people was a collateral effect of whatever it was we really wanted to do, whether it was eliminating the threat of WMD or terrorism or something else entirely that was never mentioned. Personally, I believe the administration officials who now admit that they were “sending a message” to the world that we are not soft. In fact, it’s the only thing that makes complete sense. (We could have easily cut lucrative deals for the oil by lifting sanctions.)

So, on their own terms of “sending a message,” was the end achieved and was it worth it? Was that a justifiable reason to flout international law and severely damage our relationships with allies? It’s too early to know for sure but regardless of the ultimate result, it is unprecedented and many, many people around the world are not likely to understand or support it.

There is already some collateral damage from this action, one of the most serious of which is the disintegration of American credibility. That means nothing to those in power who believe that “might makes right.” But, I don’t believe we are omnipotent and this administration, in behaving as if we are, may have set a very dangerous series of events in motion. By creating an order in which the United States does not believe that credibility is important and one in which the rule of law is inconsistently applied, we have made ourselves difficult to understand and predict.

Those who believe that force is the only viable way to ensure security think this is a good thing. But, history suggests that it invites miscalculation and overreaction. Therefore, because the stated goals of Iraq were so confused, I believe that in addition to freeing the Iraqi people, the “ends” are also likely to be an escalated arms race and a breakdown of the international rule of law among powerful and near powerful nations, on top of the “rogue” states who already flout the rules.

The people of the US deserved to know that in order to “send a message” (and incidentally free the Iraqi people) we may have destabilized the world and made it more dangerous than it has been since the height of the cold war, if not longer. Perhaps the American people would have sanctioned freeing the Iraqi people anyway, in which case I commend them for their generosity and compassion. But if that’s true, it seems strange that on the heels of our great victory over tyranny (at very little cost to ourselves in lives) we aren’t seeing a groundswell of sentiment to free any of the other of the billions of oppressed people on this earth.

Which then begs the question of whether we are also, after the fact, “sending a message” to ourselves — of warm and hearty congratulations for our righteousness and good intentions. The fact that it was all based on lies will not be allowed interfere with the overwhelming good feeling and love we now have for ourselves, regardless of the real means or the real ends.

Depends On What The Meaning Of Pervert Is

Sam Heldman, in his invaluable ongoing expose of Federal Court nominee Pryor, linked today to this article in the Washington Post that points out Pryor’s use of almost exactly the same language to describe the effects of a right to privacy, (in an amicus brief he filed in the Texas sodomy case) to the language Santorum used in his AP interview.

Pryor:

“Petitioners’ protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, a constitutional right that protects ‘the choice of one’s partner’ and ‘whether and how to connect sexually’ must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia (if the child should credibly claim to be ‘willing’)”

Santorum:

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

And, of course, Santorum also mentioned that the right to “man on dog” and “man on child” sex would inexorably follow any ruling upholding a right to privacy.

Pryor, as hideously theocratic as he is, isn’t quite as stupid as Santorum (even a sea anemone isn’t quite as stupid as Santorum) so he didn’t add bigamy and polygamy to the list of clear and present dangers to America, seeing as they are matters of contract law in which the state has an interest. (As, it would seem to me that adultery is as well. Any lawyers out there who can let me know if that’s correct?) But, he neglected to mention the serious threats of prostitution and necrophilia.

Does Rick Santorum think that prostitution and necrophilia aren’t among the serious problems affecting America today?

Perhaps he believes that prostitution is not a threat to his definition of what a politically correct family should be. Perhaps he doesn’t view it as consensual, since it’s obvious that many fine religious Republican men are bewitched by scantily clad women into doing things they shouldn’t do.

But, what to make of his not mentioning the immediate danger to our children by necrophiliacs?

Why wouldn’t he be concerned about people who might expose their small children to corpses, make them handle them and talk to them in strange and unusual rituals that the mainstream Americans find deeply disturbing?

Any ideas?

Soft Underbelly

This article by Michael Tomasky in The Prospect is great. (In fact, his column is a must read every week.) I agree with everything he says except the argument that the uproar over the Santorum remarks only benefits the gay community.

I think the uproar should be aimed at all Americans who believe in the constitution and don’t practice bigotry for fun and profit. But, it also should be aimed at Americans who don’t like the idea of the government intruding on their private lives. And, I would suggest that is most of them.

The GOP is revealing itself as the anti-privacy party. They are enabling the state to rummage through everybody’s medical records, they want corporations to be allowed to buy and sell your purchase records and any other information they may have, they are more interested in medical marijuana than the serious issue of identity theft, and they want to make permanent the ill considered Patriot Act which gave the government vast new surveillance powers.

Now, along comes Lil’ Ricky telling a reporter outright that he doesn’t believe there is any right to privacy (an article of faith in the anti-abortion cult), that he thinks gay civil rights are a slippery slope to perversion and that he further believes his view of sexual morality should be enshrined as the law of the land for everybody.

This desire and ability to invade the homes and private lives of our citizens is UnAmerican. It goes against every tenet of freedom that George W. Bush constantly preaches about, particularly the All American belief in individualism and the inalienable right to life, liberty and happiness. Who the hell gave John Ashcroft and Rick Santorum and Jack Welch and Dick Cheney the right to information about me without my permission, to investigate me without probable cause or to tell me what I can do in my own home?

The Republicans do not believe in freedom any more than they believe in equality. This negation of the right to be left alone is coming from all GOP quarters — religious, government and corporate and it is a potent example of their lack of patriotism and any sincere belief in traditional American values. Just what do they think liberty consists of? The freedom to be harassed and coerced by every interest group in the Republican Party until you either join up or shoot yourself in the head?

Jeez. Even France has more respect for individual rights than Republicans do.

Loyalty Oath

Hitler wrote in “Mein Kampf”

“… in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.

Smart guy, no doubt about it. That surely explains why so many Americans believe that Iraq and 9/11 are connected and why many probably believe that WMD have been found or that they were destroyed in the days before the war or any other of the improbable explanations as to why the fundamental rationale on which this war was based simply must be true in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. A good number of people simply do not want to believe that the President of the United States would blatantly lie over and over and over again on a subject of such importance.

(It also explains the seemingly incomprehensible fact that a president was just recently impeached for supposedly lying about a consensual sex act, a crime Republicans considered to be so heinous that it had to be prosecuted or risk undermining the entire concept of the rule of law.)

But what to make of this? I read that editorial (courtesy of the indispensable Mediawhoresonline) and found myself staring off into space trying to understand how we will be able to function as a society when we finally cast off even the pretense of a requirement for honesty in democratic leaders.

”Would it bother you if we were to discover that George Bush lied about the case for going to war?” I asked.

He knew what I was referring to. His blunt answer left my jaw hanging.

“Everyone knows he lied about weapons of mass destruction being the point of the war.”

Just a few weeks ago, any statement from me that Bush’s case for war was riddled with inconsistencies and illogic would have brought swift and fierce condemnation from this fellow.

Now, basking in the glow of military conquest — and confronted by a thus-far futile search for chemical and biological weapons — this hawk breezily conceded the point while also waving it away as inconsequential.

The difference between the gullible average guy who refuses to believe his President would lie and the guy quoted above is significant. The first holds that honesty is so important that he must cling to a belief in the honest nature of his leader even in the face of evidence to the contrary. The latter thinks honesty or even logical consistencies are unnecessary.

Instead of insisting that WMD were present and then manufacturing the evidence to back up that claim, which is what I expected in the event that the WMD claim proved bogus, we now find the administration and Jack Straw in the UK beginning to indicate, like the fellow above, that we lied about the WMD and it doesn’t matter, either in practical terms or as a matter of principle or that what they plainly said was not what they plainly said. Josh Marshall points out that Ken Adelman is even claiming that the UN forced us to lie about WMD.

The editorial writer of the piece quoted above calls it hypocrisy, but that’s really not completely correct. It’s hypocritical in the sense that these people all lie yet proclaim themselves virtuous and honest, yes. But, the phenomenon of lying to persuade people of the rightness of an action you wish to undertake with their permission and then saying later that what you said never mattered at all is something else entirely.

My first reaction was to see it as yet another audacious display of arrogance and privilege. They simply believe they can get away with anything. But, after thinking about it, I actually think it is far more insidious than that. It is an insult designed to get a particular reaction.

Like the boss who requires his staff to obsequiously and insincerely flatter him (because he delights in forcing them to say something they don’t believe purely to please him, and knowing they know it) it is less an act of narcissism than a demonstration of power. Regardless of whether they had bad intelligence or just bad intentions, for the administration to straightforwardly say to their supporters that the arguments they had them put forth with such fervor prior to the war were never correct and don’t matter anyway is, in effect, demanding a loyalty oath that says they are willing to give up any claim to personal integrity in support of the party. You can believe me or you can believe your lyin’ eyes.

And to those who expressed skepticism about the imminent threat presented by Saddam, these people are saying , “We have demonstrated that we can get away with lying outright, over and over again and no one has the courage or the will to hold us accountable. You are powerless to defeat us through logic or rational argument. Might makes right.”

When you add this to the ongoing and systematic attacks against any criticism of the President or his policies, you have the makings of a new order. From this, Brownshirts are made.

This gentleman has a choice to make.