I'm not sure how they do it, but do it, they do, and they do it well.
To be a bit more descriptive -- although in the current political atmosphere, you probably already suspect who "they" are and what the "it" is -- I write of Congressional Republicans and their knack for expressing outrage, which virtually always intimidates the vastly more thoughtful.
They're always outraged, since someone, somewhere, is often suggesting something reasonable. And the latter, of course, cannot be tolerated, lest unassaulted reason be allowed to take root in the public sphere.
As we know -- and as they know all too well -- the best defense is a good offense; hence Congressional Republicans have grown offensively outraged in direct proportion to their defensiveness. And given the squalid state of affairs in their party -- all the scandals, miscalculations and general malfeasance -- they're about to pop with reactive lividness. They're in permanent outrage now, always "furiously denouncing" one thing or another, one foe or another, one reasonable concept or another.
Yesterday was the perfect outlet for their bilious doings, what with the good general and dutiful ambassador running smack into reasonable doubt. True to form, the twosome's political allies on Capitol Hill were outraged -- outraged at the reason, the doubt, at the missing rubber stamp.
Representative Duncan Hunter, ranking Republican on the House armed services committee and, rumor has it, presidential candidate, was the first to raise high the GOP standard. It was "an outrage," said Duncan, and "against the traditions of this great House" that, as the NYT paraphrased and abridged his rant, "some lawmakers seemed to have made up their minds about the worth of General Petraeus’s testimony, and even his personal credibility, well before his appearance today."
The absolute and indisputable fact that Duncan himself had made up his mind about the general's testimony well before his appearance was, naturally, a fact not to be reckoned with. The important thing was to express the outrage that others had done that, the intolerant ninnies.
Meanwhile, and throughout the day, Duncan's fellow Republicans "furiously denounced a full-page advertisement by the liberal antiwar group Moveon.org that accused General Petraeus of 'cooking the books for the White House,' saying he had provided misleading statistics to back up his claim that violence in Iraq had come down. The full-page ad appeared in The New York Times on Monday, under the headline 'General Petraeus or General Betray Us?'"
And they had a wonderful time doing it. The opportunity was one of those priceless distractions made for the theatrically outraged -- the chance to furiously denounce the tremendously obvious: cooked books and misleading statistics, the only justifications this war has.
But back to my opening observation: "I'm not sure how they do it, but do it, they do" -- which is to ask, how they get away with it; specifically, how what they do "virtually always intimidates the vastly more thoughtful." That's the part that leaves one flummoxed.
For as shallow as it has been, Republican outrage and furious denunciations are once again winning the day. Congressional Democrats are cowering under the blistering assault, heeding more the opposition than their base, as well as the great majority of the American public. In doing so, they're taking ownership of a war that they, by and large, oppose.
We live in a time of the world turned upside down. The Age of Reason has been trumped, perhaps for good. And while you and I find that outrageous, our outrage simply doesn't count.
Excellent point, eloquently put. But the failure-of-nerve dishonor doesn't just go to Dems. It goes to MSM; and not just MSM, but the all-too-few bona fide "progressives" therein. I have a question which, on reflection, reveals a 'weapons-grade' dimension to it; and I've had this conviction "coroborated" in personal several-minute long phone conversations over years now, including with John Nichols, Jay Bookman, Paul Nyden, and, most recently 6 weeks ago, with Joe Copeland of the Seattle PI--who said indeed he'd likely do an "editorial" on the premise. He, like the others, mysteriously "dropped the ball".
Again, this after a cordial conversation--I'm nobody--there's no reason that I can see for these busy writers/editors to "humor" me--indeed I'm always surprised to gain their ear for as long as I have, instead of being told crisply, "interesting idea...good luck with it...bye bye..."
instead, there's a shared relishing of simply imagining the response, say, from Cheney especially, or Bush, but also, Bremer; Wolfowitz, Rice, Rove...etc...the "question" is a blunt "yes" or "no"--would you agree--for life--to "recu$e" yourself--to surrender on demand--any personal profit traceable to any war or bloodshed you were or are involved in taking us into? Yes or No. Surrender to whom? How about to Veteran's benefit groups; college funds for children of the fallen, etc. How 'bout we just let the blogosphere "monitor"...
Remember how nervous Bush was in the debate with Kerry over the (relatively trivial) timber investment in the Presidential Portfolia? what if the Recu$al question had instead been asked of both candidates, and its point pressed? Bush would have to (doubtless horrified) contemplate the tens of millions known to define the "Fortune$ of War Room" in the Bush Family Estate...imagine him urgently searching the 'corner' he'd be in for "wiggle room"...imagine the Move-on ad hitting the airwaves with the 'hesitation' in their one-by-one answers--the wheelchairs & canes of Iraq war vets rolling & tapping over a dirge, the caskets of Dover...then Bush, ala 9-11, smacking a golf ball, Cheney, blasting quail...enlage on that mug, freeze frame, fade to black...
if such a question favored the hard right, they'd have beaten the bejesus out of us with it by now. It favors us, the People's interests, and, having as it does, such a $lippery $lope, could even stop the planned attack on Iran. Yes. That's what a slippery slope IS--you lose footing if the answer wrong, and someone follows suit, and the wrongness of so much is suddenly piled on the table of bloodshed before us, and people look from them to the war they want, back and forth: and if the "look" of America STOPS at them--then...it's Game Over.
Including the latest war they want. It doesn't have to go that far to be worth asking. But that it COULD go that far, and that it remains "unasked", remains our tacit disgrace as self-styled progressive "warriors"...
http://www.kyndmusic.com/2006/07/01/artist-general-warning-recusal-question-bad-for-bush/
Posted by: Artist General | September 12, 2007 at 02:10 PM