"The Lens of 9-11" = "The Paranoid, Racist, Fascist Lens of Delusion"

[Brotherjohn]

Neo-cons now assert, for lack of better evidence linking Iraq to terrorism, that we must now view matters (such as intelligence on Iraq and other potential threats) "through the lens of 9-11". What they are really saying is that we must now view these matters through the same delusional, paranoid, racist, fascist, Euro-centric lens through which they view the world.

Through that lens, we must kill or be killed, damn the consequences (or whether those killed are guilty of anything or not). Through that lens, Islam is bad, and all Islamic people and nations, are terrorists. Through that lens, the ends justify the means. Through that lens, we are right because we are right, and anyone else is wrong.

Those who view the world through this lens are delusional psychopaths. Probably clinically so.

[rudeboy666]

1. Euro-centric ?

Ameri-centric?

[Brotherjohn]

3. True, not "Euro-centric" in the sense of today's Eurpoeans...

In that respect, more properly "Americentric".

I was referring more to the mindest likely prevalent in many of these mostly white, Judeo-Christan men of European descent. That is, that only white, Judeo-Christan men of European descent can properly determine the fate of the world.

[ProfessorPlum]

2. too

true.

[Gringo]

4. I like that.

:kick:

[Skidmore]

5. Delusional psychopaths shepherding

a citizenry collectively suffering from PTSD into an apocolyse. Not a pretty sight.

[opihimoimoi]

6. Delusion has gone Ebolaesque lately. The Pub pysops is working

all too well.

[waggawagga]

8. Hmmm

The Democrats do have to look at 2004 through the lens of 9/11. They face an interesting choice. There are two approaches they can take: 1) criticize Bush but not really offer some coherent alternate vision ("whatever Bush does is wrong"); 2) offer such a coherent vision but then risk alienating those who disagree with its substance.

I'll predict how this will go down. If the Bush policy in 2004 appears to have failed then the best choice for the Democrats, tactically, probably is just to criticize. This is the equivilent of, "I'm going to Korea", or, "I have a secret plan to win the war in Vietnam". If people have judged the current policy a failure you don't really have to present an alternative (because voters would support whatever is new, a Democratic victory would really be the public's referendum on the failed Bush policy).

What would cause the public to conclude that the Bush policy had failed? I think it comes down to two concrete things: 1) are terrorists attacking targets within the US (so far the answer is no); 2) does this occupation in Iraq look as if it might succeed or is the US getting stuck deeper into a quagmire (unknown but I think the public will have a clear sense of this by next year).

If the public's perception of the answers to the above two questions is "no" and "yes" I think the Democrats will have a very difficult time if they run their campaign from the premise that the Bush policy has failed (ie. they assert this but don't explain why or offer an alternative). That might upset some Democrats but I think that's just the situation.

In this scenario the Democratic nominee would have to argue that whatever Bush is doing he or she could do it better. Forget generalities. He or she would have to concentrate on specifics. "This is what I will do" (as opposed to "Bush made this mistake two years ago").

So yes, Democrats should be aware of how 9/11 has changed the terrain. I think this issue of security will be the most important concern of voters during the 2004 election (more important than the economy, the US hasn't had an election like this since the Cold War).

The Democrats can win in both situations but they have to appreciate the difference. If the public hasn't concluded that the Bush policy is a failure by the summer of 2004 (not what you, I, and the person next door believes, but these voters in the middle) then the Democrats will have a steeper hill to climb (they'll have to make an affirmative case, we can do a better job protecting the US, if they just stick to criticism they'll lose bigtime).

If the public has concluded this, of course, then Bush's chances in 2004 are as good as Truman's in '52 or Johnson's in '68 (ie. nonexistent, the Democrats will need a warm body, but they shouldn't rely upon this happening).

[waggawagga]

9. Oh

If this isn't obvious in what I wrote I think the Democrats do have to be careful about their rhetoric. There's an obvious retort to the allegation that Republicans, in their response to 9/11, have been war mongering, racist, Eurocentric, what have you.

You're denying the problem.

Democrats have to be prepared for this. Because in the end the public will vote for a warmongering, racist, and Eurocentric party (if that's your perception) which addresses people's fears about security over one which doesn't.

9/11 changed the terrain. The security issue is now there and has to be addressed in some fashion.

[Brotherjohn]

10. For starters, the idea that the Bush policies create MORE terror.

This is not simply criticizing Bush. In his own words, we should not pursue an "arrogant" foreign policy, lest we create enemies abroad (see 2000 Debates). In the words of the CIA, an invasion of Iraq would likely exacerbate the terrorist threat to the U.S.

While I understand that barring another terrorist attack on the U.S., it is impossible to say that a failed U.S. policy brought more terror, it is not impossible to say that the policy is flawed, nor is it impossible to pose as the alternative simply being less arrogant and guing-ho when we pursue terrorism. No one is saying do not go after terrorism. It is simply a question of how to do that, and at least some on the left has always posed alternatives at nearly every turn to Bush administration policies. Now that recent revelations have (even though most people don't want to mention it) pretty much proven that the U.S. exaggerrated the threat from Iraq, such alternatives are already starting to register with people. While they may say they still support the president and the war, you can bet they'll be more wary about the next proposed invasion. You can bet they'll be much more willing to listen to oppossing views. Especially, as you point out, if the situation in Iraq does not improve.

The alternatives Democrats may pose (and that some have been posing) are not going to be hit-you-over-the-head, "go-get-em!", aggressive policies. But I think questions about the war and the situation in Iraq have made the populace less amenable to such policies. One alternative is simply to go after the people who DO pose a realistic, significant threat to the U.S. (i.e. Al Qaeda, other terrorist organizations) with EVIDENCE, and NOT to go around the world willy nilly attacking everyone who we think MAY pose a threat to us. Another would be to scale back elements of the Patriot Act, because a legitimate case can be made that we have sacrificed too much freedom for security.

Nearly ANY alternative posed by Dems will be a response to policies of Bush. This is the case in nearly every presidential election, but especially in a case where the policies of the incumbent are so extreme. The new party, if elected, will then have a chance to show how they would govern, and could run on that record in the next election.

[rman]

7. through that lense "no WMD's = WMD's"

.