truth > lies


The Winning Side.

Posted in Uncategorized by johnnycougar on October 26, 2005

For the political mind, there are two sides to an argument: the right side and the left side. For the moral mind, there is the right side and the wrong side. And for the emotional mind, there is the winning side and the losing side.

For people that call themselves “conservatives” Bush has really done many liberal, “big government” type things while in office. He has refused to veto anything that has come across his desk, breaking records for letting the government pass new laws. He has presided over an explosion of government pork being included in federal spending bills. The PATRIOT act is the largest “big brother government” proposition since Japanese internment camps during World War II. He has failed to reign in spending.

But the real reason Bush still retains any level of support from “conservatives” is because of the war in Iraq. But this isn’t even a conservative idea. It is the biggest government pork project there is, as ungodly amounts of money are being flushed down the toilet. Interventionalism is and always has been a populist idea. But yet the “conservatives” that back Bush all support him for his biggest government ideas.

To what do we owe this ironic twist of rationality among Bush supporters? They call themselves conservative, but they support his big government ideas. The reason, I believe, is that they simply want to be on the winning side. The 9/11 attacks made America look weak and vulnerable to many of our citizens. The PR propaganda released shortly afterwards was geared to counter this, and cast Bush and America as tough and dominant once again. To appear dominant once again, America had to attack something, someone, anyone. So we went into Afghanistan. But that wasn’t big enough. We had to find another target that we could easily incinerate quickly to make America seem tough again. That perfect target was Saddam Hussein.

Quite simply, “conservatives” that support the president support beating somebody up and winning, and not real conservative values. No matter how irrational it is, no matter how detrimental to this country and themselves it is, they just want to beat somebody up and be on the winning side. Not the right side, not the left side, not the morally correct side, but the winning side.

The entire conservative propaganda empire, from Fox News to Limbaugh to Jerry Fallwell play on this theme: “Conservatives are tough and dominant, liberals are weak and flaky.” Is it any coincidence that Sean Hannity looks like an ex-quarterback from the high school football team, and Alan Colmes looks like the science nerd that everyone threw food at during lunchtime? If you doubt me, just read some Ann Coulter columns. Her rhetoric is all about dominance, and not conservatism.

If the underlying debate were really about left and right, Bush would have no support at all. He spends like a drunken sailor, and the only individual liberties he supports are those of CEO’s of companies and law enforcement authorities. But “conservatives” in government and their constituents have managed to shift the axis on which the debate is centered from a political one to an emotional one. Support for Bush is more about winning than being a conservative. It is more about winning than taking the moral action. Right-wing propaganda has invented many enemies that “conservatives” have to “win” against: terrorists, liberals, the Clintons, welfare queens, college professors, scientists, etc. It’s not about facts or morals, it’s about beating someone up. “Conservative” propaganda is just there to tell you who it is.

How do you fight this? NOT by becoming more moderate. Not by playing to the center. That comes off as weak. You play this by dominating the public discussion, sticking to your points, knowing the facts, and not backing down. You do this by having a strong set of values that you believe in, and never doubting them. You do this by taking the fight to the streets and never giving up your proud, leftist values. Liberalism is good for nearly everyone in this country. It gives power to the bottom 95% of the people. Conservatives should be the ones on the defensive for their “fuck the middle class, screw the poor” selfish attitudes. How many people would agree with conservatives if the debate was framed in that manner?

Advertisements

3 Responses to 'The Winning Side.'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'The Winning Side.'.

  1. Bru said,

    In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, don’t you mean “irrationality”?

    One point I’d like to make is that the Iraq war was not conjured up after Afghanistan, in order to “step up” the toughness facade. The planning for it started as early as the final day of the first gulf war. After the appetizer, the neocons were smacking their lips for 12 years before the main course was finally served.

    The Iraq war is just an extension of the neocons’ quest to find something — anything — to justify elephantine defense budgets. The Cold War was over, so we needed to find some “enemy” — any “enemy” — to replace the “Reds.” Voila: the “terrorists.” Or, to use Orwell’s allegory, our war with Eurasia was over, so we started a war with Eastasia.

  2. JohnnyCougar said,

    “One point I’d like to make is that the Iraq war was not conjured up after Afghanistan, in order to “step up” the toughness facade.”

    I realize this. In the article, I was talking more from the perspective of the constituants, and not the leaders of the conservative movement. To the majority, I think, war with Iraq was not a feasible solution until they felt they had to beat somebody up after 9/11. just my opinion, though.

  3. Robola said,

    I think you’re both right, albeit in different areas of when this war was conceived.

    The PNAC and other neocon groups obviously had the itch much longer than the general public. They were simply neutered in terms of public opinion because Clinton was able to neutralize Iraq. Once they came into power, though, they put those old plans into use again. In “A Pretext for War” by James Bamford, he writes that the plan pushed by Richard Perle and others was actually presented to Israel in the mid 90s. It wasn’t used then, but recycled and reproposed to the whitehouse after 9/11.

    So, in effect, the idea was always present, but the opportunity finally presented itself through our ugly national reaction to 9/11 and islamists. Without that emotionally neutered reaction, the war wouldn’t have been accepted as easily, considering half the country was still against it then.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: