Invader

Bush's speech to the Republican Governors: The Abridged Edition

After hearing a few choice quotes from the President's address to the Republican Governors' Association on the news this morning, I decided to read the full text, and write a summary. However, several paragraphs in, my eyes began glazing over, so I wound up skimming the rest. So here, based on my thirty seconds or so of scanning the text, is an abridged version of that speech:

Great Achievement Tax Relief Terror Tax Relief War on Terror Terror Defense Terror Terror Medicare Did I Mention Terror Yet? Tax Relief Job Creation Terror Privatization Terror Terror Terror Weapons of Mass Destruction Saddam Terror Terror Faith-Based September 11th Terror Gay Marriage Terror Terror

It eventually all just turned into a blur of "terror" alternating with (applause) as I scrolled down. I also think at one point the audience began applauding for its own applause. I can't be sure. Anyhow, if this speech marks the beginning of Bush's 2004 campaigning, I think it's safe to assume he very well might be planning to make terror an issue. Just a hunch.

Political Coprophagia and its Power

Coprophagia. Eating shit. Salvador Dali did it. Lou Reed is rumored to have done it. And increasingly, ordinary Americans are getting in on the act as well. Politically speaking, that is.

What I'm talking about, of course, is buying into your own lies. Believing, or at least pretending to believe, the disingenous rhetoric of the spokespersons for your political persuasion. Taking to heart bogus justifications of proposed policies, smears against rival politicians, and unfair characterizations of opposing parties. Becoming, ideologically, the embodiment of your party's most hyperbolic rhetoric.

It's understandable, though, making a meal of political manure. Supporting a party is so much easier when it supplies you with a handful of certainties, that allow you, no matter its failings, to reassure yourself that you're on the side of right, battling against all who are wrong. For example, it's easy for conservatives who question Bush's fiscal irresponsibility to continue to support his presidency by clinging to the notion that only Republicans can keep America safe from terror, that supply side economics works, and that liberals "hate America" and would destroy it if given power. Liberals, on the other hand, augment their legitimate anger over Bush's policies by standing by the less-than-legitimate claims that Bush is mentally handicapped, that Democrats are in no way beholden to special interests, and that conservatives are, to a man, wild-eyed, bible-thumping bigots.

But - and perhaps I'm just eating shit myself, here - in my experience, conservatives seem a bit more prone than liberals to believe their own rhetoric, no matter how ridiculous (by "conservatives" and "liberals" here I'm referring primarily to moderates of either stripe. Extremists, no matter their ideology, tend to be alike in their unwavering allegiance to their political mythologies). This is the case, I think, for two reasons: First, conservatives tend to be more trusting of their leaders than liberals, if only due to the fact that liberals tend to reflexively question any and all authority. Second, conservatives seem more willing to use any means necessary - even convincing themselves of a lie- to achieve their political ends (I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing - in fact, I think a case can be made for the ends justifying the means in politics, from time to time). Liberals, on the other hand, have a need to feel they're "playing fair" when they act politically, and are thus less willing to employ dubious means to achieve their goals (note that there's yet to be a liberal Watergate or "October Surprise").

Examples abound, too, of conservatives apparently fooled into believing their own barbs: Why else would a group of young Republicans crash a Democratic rally on the campus of an Iowa university and attempt to forcefully disrupt it if they didn't buy into the notion that Democrats are "weak?" How do you explain the popularity of book after book that blames America's problems not just on liberal politicians, but anyone, politician or not, who believes in liberalism, if conservatives by and large don't buy into the notion that liberals are "traitors?" (the plethora of liberal books blaming America's problems on conservatives, whatever their failings, mostly stick to impugning conservative politicians and businessmen, and not ordinary citizens) And I'm not going to even get into the whole "Hillary is the left's savior" thing. I'd be laughing too hard to type.

But I am going to tell a story, drawing on my own personal experience, that illustrates to what degree the Right is willing to buy into its own untruths, for the purposes of advancing its cause:

The story begins in 1998, in my native Washington state, where two prominent conservatives, Republican state representative Scott Smith, and anti-tax "crusader" Tim Eyman (who would later admit to embezzling over $200,000 in funds from his drives to "keep the government out of your wallet") authored Initiative 200, a piece of legislation modeled after California's Proposition 209 that would effectively end affirmative action statewide. The initiative received considerable support from conservatives on both a local and a national level, including financial backing from Ward Connerly (the leader of the California anti-affirmative action movement), local right-wing talk-show host John Carlson, and the Scaife Foundation. It was opposed by the NAACP and a number of other minorities' rights groups, the ACLU, and most local Democratic politicians.

Now, to be fair, there are a number of legitimate arguments for at least amending affirmative action, such as the fact that it fails to take into account economic status (ask yourself, for instance, if you believe an African-American who grows up as a member of a wealthy family, in an affluent suburb is more deserving of a spot at a state university than a poor white who is brought up in an economically depressed rural town). But, unfortunately, these arguments, presumably because they were too subtle to effectively prosyletize the public, were not brought into play. Instead, supporters of the initiative decided that they would justify their campaign as ... wait for it... an extension of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Yes, somehow, a campaign led primarily by wealthy whites - opposed by the nation's most prominent African-American rights organization - that set out to dismantle much of the machinery put in place by the civil rights movement had convinced itself it was walking in Martin Luther King's footsteps. Literally. Supporters of the initiative invoked King's name so frequently in fact, in television advertisements and other promotional materials, that Coretta Scott King, his widow, wrote an open letter to the state, admonishing that "Because my husband's own words have been misused to support an initiative that would destroy his work and legacy, I feel compelled to speak out against this dangerous proposal. I-200 threatens a retreat from the goal of equal opportunity to which my husband and countless others committed their lives."

Unfortunately, Ms. King's word's went unheeded, as the state's conservatives bought entirely into the notion that I-200 was carrying on Dr. King's legacy of civil rights legislation. Editorial pages of local papers were filled with letters from I-200 supporters accusing their opponents of racism (no, not against whites, either - against minorities). Conservative talk radio hosts couldn't stop quoting from "I Have a Dream" (one of the bill's supporters, John Carlson, was fired from the station at which he worked for devoting too much time to stumping on its behalf). And, in what may be the single most absurdist moment of my life, politically speaking, an anti-I-200 rally I attended at the University of Washington was crashed by a group of I-200 supporters (all of them white), singing "We Shall Overcome" and carrying signs bearing slogans of the civil rights movement. (A good paper summarizing the carefully chosen rhetoric of the right during this campaign can be found here)

Sadly, I-200 eventually passed, and Washington state's affirmative action laws were rescinded. And, suddenly, the state's conservatives ceased to be dauntless crusader's for civil rights. No longer would you hear the words of black leaders quoted favorably on conservative talk radio. No longer did conservative letter writers seem interested in addressing racism. The Right had bought into the lie while it served their ends, politically, and just as quickly, stopped believing. It was a victory almost worth admiring, for its unabashed Machiavellianism. It was a testament to how willing conservatives are to believe their own disingenuous rhetoric, and how well that willingness serves them. They had believed so strongly, that they had swayed the majority of the state's voters to believe along with them.

The lesson of this story, and this post, of course, is the power of political bullshit, and the power conservatives wield in their willingness to dig right into that bullshit with a big spoon and call it ice cream. Tell a lie enough times and it becomes truth, so the adage goes, and there's no one better at telling a lie than someone who believes in it. Hence, in 2004, the Democrats must not, as they did in 2000, overlook the power of conservative coprophagia. And if they don't want to get Gore'd again, they're going to have to make the nation believe that that's not a scoop of Rocky Road the Republicans are licking. Democrats weak on defense? Call it bullshit. Democrats fiscally irresponsible? Call it bullshit. Democrats are out of touch? Call it bullshit. Then ask: Sure you want to eat that?

Opening this evening for Hot Tuna: Explosive Syrup

Like most individuals with a claim to at least partial sanity, I was perplexed, to say the least, by Peggy Noonan's most recent column, which culminates in a bizarre digression on how, if there were a fire at your house, George W. Bush would be there asking "where's Sally?" while the neighborhood intellectual would be busy commenting on how fire is like explosive syrup (goes great with combustible waffles or flammable pancakes). But at the same time, I wasn't surprised. Noonan's fantasizing was merely the latest manifestation of a long history of anti-intellectualism in American politics.

If you glance over to the right sidebar of this site, you'll find, at the top of my reading list, Richard Hofstadter's Pulitzer prize-winning book "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life." It's no coincidence it's the first item on the list. As a chronicle of the wax and wane of anti-intellectualism in this country, it's of particular relevance in an era in which a man celebrated as a non-intellectual "regular person" serves as President.

Among the topics explored by Hofstadter is one that is at the heart of Noonan's riffing on Bush's triumphant normalcy: that of the counterposition of intellect and action. Intellectuals have long been portrayed as ineffectual and inert, and thereby unfit for political office, if one presumes that the duty of the politician is first and foremost to act. Unfortunately, what gets lost in this line of thinking is the fact that a politician's actions carry with them rather significant consequences. Hence, it's for the best that he or she carefully contemplate an undertaking before putting it into effect. Quick action may serve best in an immediate crisis, such as fighting a fire, but not in the context of a complicated issue, such as determining the national budget, or deciding whether or not to go to war.

George W. Bush may in fact be the man you'd want around to lend a hand, were your house burning down. But while this might make him a great neighbor, it's a bit unclear how it qualifies him for the office of President. Leading the country requires the ability to make intelligent choices on complicated issues, and not so much a willingness to, as Noonan suggests, "direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out." (notwithstanding the fact that pointing a fire truck in the right direction and counting children is pretty scant evidence that one is a man of action) Sorry, but, let them talk about explosive syrup - or any other incendiary condiment, for that matter - all they want: I'll take an intellectual as my President.

The Economics of Environmental Rollbacks

I've noticed that it's become a popular tactic among conservative pundits to justify the Bush administration's rollback of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other pro-environment legislation by suggesting that its purpose is job-creation (as does the administration itself - see Item Four). Typically, too, the issue is framed in partisan terms, whereby tree-hugging liberals and the laws inspired by their pseudo-scientific paranoia are being pushed aside in order to generate employment for honest, hard-working Americans.

The problem is, the logic that says environmental regulation is preventing new jobs from being created is couched in hopelessly naive, unsophisticated economics. To argue that companies aren't hiring new employees due to the expense of complying with federally mandated standards is to assume that the only funds available to a business looking to expand are its own profits (not that they were impacted much by the overturned regulations, anyhow). But the thing about capitalism is that most companies fund expansion with, er, capital - specifically, external capital, in the form of stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. When a company grows, it does so in order to increase its revenue, and as long as it isn't taking too many risks, it usually doesn't have trouble finding someone who's willing to put up some cash, in order to get a piece of that revenue. So while cutting into a company's profits might prevent it from hiring the CEO a fourth personal assistant, it shouldn't keep it from undertaking the type of large-scale projects that produce significant numbers of new jobs.

Rolling back environmental regulations isn't about creating new jobs. It's about boosting ever so slightly the bottom line of companies that imperil air and water quality. Though it may be portrayed as lending a hand to the working man at the expense of liberals' guilty consciences, it's in reality a case of padding the wallets of executives at the expense of Americans' health.

The Payback For the Christ

I'm no historian of the Christian Church, but based on what little I know, it seems that the life of Jesus Christ has tended to be interpreted in one of two manners: either as a life to be emulated, by compassion toward all mankind; or as a life to be avenged, by death to the non-believers. The former is evident in the work of Mother Theresa, the Salvation Army, and other charitable Christian individuals and organizations; the latter is evident in the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and, arguably, the Holocaust.

In the late 1990s, it appeared that the interpretation favoring Jesus as a model of compassion was in the ascendant, as indicated by the popularity of WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) bracelets and the growth in the number of "faith-based" charities. However, following September 2001, those Christians that supported "the war on terror" would have to find a way to reconcile their interest in making war with their interest in leading a life modeled after a man who espoused pacifism. Clearly, there existed a need to alleviate this cognitive dissonance, to rationalize an endorsement of violence made while following in the footsteps a man of peace. Many Christians cannot help but have asked, WWJDAa-Q (What Would Jesus Do About al-Qaeda)?

Enter Mel Gibson, who with "The Passion of the Christ," is attempting to revitalize the notion that Jesus is best memorialized not with kindess, but with kicking ass. What matters most about Christ, Gibson's cinematic passion play would have viewers believe, is not his life, or his works, but the fact that he died a violent death at the hands of non-Christians. This emphasis made, of course, because it provides an excuse to revisit this death on others, in particular those who deny his divinity. In fact, given its incredibly graphic nature, the film cannot help but invite comparisons to the prelude of "revenge" films (such as Mr. Gibson's own "Payback") wherein the hero (or a friend or family member of the hero) is brutalized, only to later take revenge, in kind, on his enemies. Except, in this case, while the bloody first act occurs onscreen, the vengeance is left, presumably, to the audience.

Certainly it's understandable that Christians would want to reconcile their faith with an interest in defending their country. But to reconcile these two beliefs by suggesting that violence is a religious duty is, I think, an incredibly dangerous tactic. If history should have taught us anything about the relation of religion to war it's that the two, when mixed, are a particularly deadly combination.

Maybe It's Just Me

But it seems like the Right hasn't been chanting its mantra of "don't listen to what the liberal media tells you, everything is just fine in Iraq" so loudly of late. I guess it's hard to tell a crowd of onlookers "move along, nothing to see folks," when you're standing in front of a building that has smoke pouring out of it.

Invadebutante Ball

So far today, three or four sites have linked to me (mostly to the previous two posts) and subsequently my traffic has skyrocketed, relatively speaking (from about two hits a day to two hits a minute). Apparently this is my blogospheric debutante ball, if you will. So, allow me to offer a polite "Hey Ya" to all my visitors, and add that although I do get flustered, in front of an audience, I promise to do my best to keep up the quality writing that has earned this site the attention and acclaim it's received over the past twenty minutes.

Losing My Conspicuous Religion

The French National Assembly has voted to ban "conspicuous" religious symbols, such as crucifixes, yarmulkas, and head scarves, in state-run schools. But what are the implications for members of other world religions? Below are a few of the mandates included in the proposed legislation:

Buddhists: Must appear agitated and nervous at all times so as not give any indication of having acheived inner peace.

Mormons: Use of teeth-whitening products strictly forbidden.

Hindus: If killed while at school, may not reincarnate until classes have ended for the day.

Jehovah's Witnesses: May only pass out recruitment material to other Jehovah's Witnesses.

Wiccans: Must behave as if socially well-adjusted.

Agnostics: While on school grounds, must definitively believe or disbelieve in a higher power.

Taoists: Yin Yangs forbidden, other than in the form of tattoos, acquired to show, like, openness to other cultures and stuff.

Bush on Meet the Press: The Unofficial Transcript

Yesterday, President Bush appeared on Meet The Press, where he answered host Tim Russert's questions about, among other things, his accusation that the CIA had provided his administration with "flawed" intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the current turmoil in Iraq, charges that he had inflated claims about the threat posed by Iraq, and supposed gaps in his military service record. Here is a partial transcript of the proceedings:

Russert: You've suggested that it's necessary to review the CIA's intelligence gathering, in the global fight against terror.

President Bush: Well now first Tim, let me tell you something about the globe: It's round. Actually, if you want to get technical, it's spherical. And it's covered almost two-thirds in water. Which makes looking for terrorists hard, because they could be under that water. We don't know. It's hard finding things under water. You ever, Tim, you ever drop your keys in a lake, while you're out fishing? Well, then, you know, good luck ever finding them. And it's the same with the terrorists: good luck ever finding them, if they're under all that water. That's why the CIA is important. Because they have SCUBA gear, and the other tools necessary to find these underwater terrorists.

Russert: But, again, why do you think it necessary to evaluate the CIA's intelligence gathering capacity, in the fight you're leading against terror?

President Bush: Well now Tim, let me tell you something about terror. Terrorists, they aren't like you or me. They're dangerous people. They live for danger. Where someone like you, or me, we might own a dog, a terrorist would own, um, one of those dinosaurs, from Jurassic Park. You know, the ones who were always killing everyone.

Russert: The T Rex?

President Bush: No, the, the smaller ones, with the claws. The raptors, I think it was. I'll have to get that out and watch it later. Otherwise this'll be bugging me the rest of the day.

Russert: I see, sir. But..

President Bush: And another thing Tim, is, oh... look! Look behind you!

Russert: What! What!

President Bush: Well, it's nothing, but the point is, a terrorist could have been there. That's why we have to fight this war.

...

Russert: Now, there are some who have blamed this administration for the current turmoil in Iraq

President Bush: You know Tim, I seem to recall there was a bit of turmoil in our own country's history, as we became a democracy. Because, if I remember correctly, after the French and Indian War we were under the rule of the King of France, Napoleon, and to a lesser extent the King of the Indians, as well. I can't remember his name, though. Crazy Bull, wasn't it? But then the British came along, with their coalition, and they set us free. And of course afterward, there were conflicts, and many people in Britain, they said, just like today, they said bring the troops home. But the British occupying force, they stuck with it, until we set aside our differences, and formed the free system of government we have today.

Russert: Actually, sir, the United States fought against the British in the Revolutionary War.

President Bush: You're thinking of the Civil War there, Tim.

...

Russert: Some of your critics have charged you with inflating claims about Iraq's weapons programs. They like to say you "sexed them up."

President Bush: You know, that expression. I just have to laugh, because it reminds me, we used to play that one song, "I Want to Sex You Up," at Rangers games back in what was it, 1991? Who did that, anyways?

Russert: Color Me Badd

President Bush: Whatever happened to them? It would be great if VH1 would do a Behind the Music about them.

Russert: But as to the charge?

President Bush: [laughs] Well, I was doing some "sexing up" before the war, but it didn't involve claims about weapons programs, if you know what I mean.

Russert: I think so, sir.

President Bush: And, uh, just in case anyone gets the wrong idea, this "sexing up," it was only with my wife, the First Lady.

Russert: Yes, of course.

President Bush: And it wasn't anything weird, either. Because you know , that term, "sexing up," it makes it sound like there was something unusual, something outside the norm that was going on.

Russert: Of course not, sir.

...

Russert: Some have asked, why is it that this intelligence commission that you've set up won't release its results until 2005?

President Bush: Well, Tim, this is something that requires time. Because, let me tell you, what we have, we have this paradox. Because, last spring, my administration, we criticized the CIA, because we felt they were understating the extent of the weapons programs in Iraq. But now, as it turns out, they - the intelligence community - were actually overstating these programs. So this is about trying to figure out how that happened.

Russert: But, is that really the fault of the CIA? Isn't that the fault of your admin-

President Bush: No, because this isn't about me. This is about future presidents. They deserve to know that the intelligence they receive is accurate. For example, President Thompson, in 2027. He'll need to know about the weather machine the Malaysians are developing, if he's to stop them from unleashing the typhoon that destroys Hawaii. Or President Glaxxon, in 2189. She'll need to know the size of the Krylingian Fleet, before it enters Earth orbit, if she's to have enough time to ask the Rindar Federation to come to our aid.

...

Russert: Finally, questions have come up, regarding your military service.

President Bush: Well, I stand behind my record. There are some things there that I'm not proud of. But war, it does things to you. It's kill or be killed, out on the battlefield.

Russert: Actually, it's the fact that it seems there's been some difficulty, in locating your records.

President Bush: How's that my fault? They just need to look harder. How hard is it to call the Army and ask?

Russert: I thought you served in the National Guard?

President Bush: Oh, Army, National Guard, it's all the same thing, isn't it? We were all fighting for the same cause: to keep America free. And, I have to say, the whole time I was stationed there in Texas, I never saw a single V.C., so I think we were doing a pretty good job.

Russert: Thank you, sir.

Flashes of Easterbrilliance

I'm not an immense fan of Gregg Easterbrook's politics, but I think he's second to none when it comes to analyzing the world of professional sports. Back when he wrote for ESPN.com (before he got fired for having certain, er, choice words for his boss) one of my favorite of his columns was an argument in favor of the NFL's rule requiring that a player be at least three years out of high school in order to be eligible for the league. And now that a judge has struck down this rule, he revisits his take on the matter.

I don't have much more to add than I think he's entirely correct. Ever since the NBA began admitting teen-aged players, I've grown increasingly to prefer the college game. Not only because college players exude far more raw emotion and energy, but because they play with some degree of discipline. The NBA, on the other hand, is disinterested millionaires in the throes of a suspended adolescence playing streetball. Here's to hoping the NFL gets their eligibility rule reinstated on appeal, before the league devolves into a game not fit for a sandlot.