(no subject)
Nov. 5th, 2004 09:12 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sanpaku_backupWell, we all have plenty of time to think. And think. And think.
Here's something no one has been talking about. I was struck when reading the editorial in The Economist for the reason they gave for endorsing Kerry. Remember, they were gung-ho for the war, and they are often a pretty conservative (free-market) publication. But all that paled next to the way the world now sees America, and it comes down to two words: Abu Ghraib.
Here we go: a bona fide moral issue (we're all hearing about "moral values" Republicans) that really had a lot to do with why Bush was so vulnerable this year. Remember, Bush was riding high in December after the capture of Saddam, but the revelations about Abu Ghraib coupled with the rebellion in April were what drove his numbers down. A lot of people who supported the war to that point saw those pictures and concluded that it was now impossible to believe that any good would come of the occupation.
Kerry went ahead and made the morass of Iraq the central issue of his campaign, the main reason that Bush should not be reelected. But he never uttered the two words "Abu Ghraib" (or more broadly any of the abuses from Guantanamo onward), even though that is where the administration is most terrifyingly Orwellian, even to some conservatives. All he could do is gesture to things over there without explaining what was so awful about the entire enterprise. (And he was dumb enough to vote for it, too, which didn't help.)
People want moral clarity, they say now. Well, here was a clear moral issue of no one being held accountable in the administration for an event that no one questions will create legions of terrorists. Bush couldn't even fire Rumsfeld or anyone senior in the Pentagon. That's how they achieve "moral clarity."
So why did Kerry not mention the issue? Support Our Troops and all that, but more importantly, he didn't want anyone to think too hard about his anti-Vietnam activities and speeches. No matter how noble they were in reality, in the Republican media machine, they were his achilles heel. So Abu Ghraib wasn't whispered once in this whole campaign.
I have no answers for this, but it occurs to me how phony and hypocritical it is to talk about "values" in the aftermath of the election. Republicans will be just too happy to have election after election fought over "values." Democrats cannot say how they feel because it would be, in fact, unpopular. This whole idea that we can find some born-again who will lead southern whites back to the party, is just so much wishful thinking.
Here's something no one has been talking about. I was struck when reading the editorial in The Economist for the reason they gave for endorsing Kerry. Remember, they were gung-ho for the war, and they are often a pretty conservative (free-market) publication. But all that paled next to the way the world now sees America, and it comes down to two words: Abu Ghraib.
Here we go: a bona fide moral issue (we're all hearing about "moral values" Republicans) that really had a lot to do with why Bush was so vulnerable this year. Remember, Bush was riding high in December after the capture of Saddam, but the revelations about Abu Ghraib coupled with the rebellion in April were what drove his numbers down. A lot of people who supported the war to that point saw those pictures and concluded that it was now impossible to believe that any good would come of the occupation.
Kerry went ahead and made the morass of Iraq the central issue of his campaign, the main reason that Bush should not be reelected. But he never uttered the two words "Abu Ghraib" (or more broadly any of the abuses from Guantanamo onward), even though that is where the administration is most terrifyingly Orwellian, even to some conservatives. All he could do is gesture to things over there without explaining what was so awful about the entire enterprise. (And he was dumb enough to vote for it, too, which didn't help.)
People want moral clarity, they say now. Well, here was a clear moral issue of no one being held accountable in the administration for an event that no one questions will create legions of terrorists. Bush couldn't even fire Rumsfeld or anyone senior in the Pentagon. That's how they achieve "moral clarity."
So why did Kerry not mention the issue? Support Our Troops and all that, but more importantly, he didn't want anyone to think too hard about his anti-Vietnam activities and speeches. No matter how noble they were in reality, in the Republican media machine, they were his achilles heel. So Abu Ghraib wasn't whispered once in this whole campaign.
I have no answers for this, but it occurs to me how phony and hypocritical it is to talk about "values" in the aftermath of the election. Republicans will be just too happy to have election after election fought over "values." Democrats cannot say how they feel because it would be, in fact, unpopular. This whole idea that we can find some born-again who will lead southern whites back to the party, is just so much wishful thinking.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 03:58 pm (UTC)Sure. We actually will have to work for it. But we can do that.
E.g., cut your post down to one pithy phrase. How about "What if it were your son who was captured by the other side? Torturing prisoners is wrong...Democrats for Morality in Iraq."
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 04:14 pm (UTC)There's a lot of sublimated guilt in the American psyche. Ironically tends to make people more conservative, not less, I think.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-05 04:27 pm (UTC)Budweiser sucks. Yet people buy it. Why? Advertising.
the end
Date: 2004-11-05 07:38 pm (UTC)I've always said it: You can't out-right the Right. Well, not outright, at least. This just all reminds me that I want out! Right now!