DEFINING BUSH - PART ONE
One of the great rewards for the right-wing jihad that has hijacked the government and the media in the past ten years is that they get to define their enemies – us, liberals, progressives, however defined – on their own terms. Spouting whatever carefully-designed and focus-group-tested lies they choose to repeat over and over, the wingnuts spew this garbage until even the most over-the-top fabrications are accepted as truth by casual people who once knew better.
Liberals are socialists, anything in Hillary’s book is incredible, Clinton bombed Iraq making the same WMD claims as Bush did, etc. Every daily message designed and disseminated by Karl Rove and the RNC and loyally repeated by the wingnuts contains some deliberate lie about Democrats, progressives or, even, "moderate" (only in comparison) Republicans, designed to isolate anyone that disagrees. gets in the way or even asks a question from the swing electorate that spends much of its time trying to figure out what’s doing on. Although Clinton was only the most obvious target for the program, the politics of personal destruction has proved a very effective strategy for the Bushies, who pounce and then prey on the bones of unjustly destroyed reputations and ride on the coattails of lies built with care and maintained with constant repetition.
As discussed in previous columns, we will never be allowed to have access to the giant megaphones of wingnut radio and the cable commentariat that currently poisons the discussion of public issues. But, while we search for our venue to get a message out, we should Define Bush on our terms. With the record this regime has established, it should be crystal-clear – we should make it so – who they are, what they are doing, and where a second Bush term would be headed. And, unlike their twisted lies, we will never have to resort to even so much as exaggeration to Define Bush in negative terms. One of the nice things about being progressive is that the truth is always on your side.
There was an excellent article on Salon last week that discussed the blind rage that Bush has caused for many on the left. We hate him (rather, what his empty suit represents). We watch in horror every day as his radical agenda moves forward, unchallenged by media or effective Dem opposition (although there are good discussions emerging about why the Dems appear ineffective – they are blocked in the rules committees and their press conferences are ignored by the media). Like the criminal, psychotic Nixon and the plastic, imbecilic Reagan before him (although the Bushies are much worse than those relative pikers), we expect that everyone should see through the facade and see the political, judicial, environmental, constitutional, moral, international, intellectual and criminal devastation wrought by the Bushies. But we can’t expect people to see the obvious for themselves and can’t expect them to develop the same anger that those of us devoted to truth and justice have developed. We can, however, Define Bush in terms that everyone can understand and that you don’t have to be a partisan to see.
It’s hard to do, because some outrage happens everyday that distracts us from developing an overall view. The Bushies now-daily disassembling on their WMD lies to justify what is increasingly being established as the illegal invasion of Iraq is enough to fill a blog or three every day. However, we need to take the time to Define Bush in terms that are honest and, necessarily, devastating to their continued regime. Once Defined, we can then disseminate the Definition by whatever means necessary and effective, assuming we are preaching to the unconverted. Our campaign in ‘04, whoever the candidate is, should be focused on stopping the radical madness and putting our country back on a even keel.
Next: What is Bush?
11:16:16 PM 
|
|
