May 21, 2004
The politics of projection
In the tit-for-tat world of Republican-Democratic duopoly politics, “I know you are but what am I” is a revered comeback for beleaguered ideologues. Is there any hope for those of us more interested in principles and truth than in the trivialities of two-party politics?
Democrats respond to the claim that John Kerry is a "flip-flopper" by itemizing the issues on which Bush has staked out territory on both sides of the fence. When the GOP criticized Kerry for voting against "vital weapons systems," Democrats/liberals pointed out that Cheney had cast similar votes when he was in the Congress. When Team Bush claims that Kerry wants to raise taxes, the "opposition" notes that Republican led state governments have been raising taxes for years. Etc.
Does this pattern of allegation on the part of the Bush campaign indicate a conscious strategy, or is it rather an unconscious projection, a naive hypocrisy? Clearly, on the assumption that everyone hears the allegation but few catch the rebuttal, it could be worthwhile (though risky) to determine which criticisms would be most damaging to your own presidential bid, and then level them against your opponent before he can call you on them. But then again, perhaps this is just one more example of the Bush administration's ineptitude: it can't avoid getting caught in its own rhetorical traps. Whatever the case may be, political ping-pong has been virtually built into the presidential campaign at the tactical level.
A similar back and forth plays out at a more general level as well. While liberal Democrats have no qualms about accusing the right of "lacking patriotism," conservative Republicans are fond of denouncing the left as "anti-American." The logic of political projection, however, suggests that it is liberals who are unpatriotic and conservatives who are anti-American. Indeed, is it not unpatriotic to question the patriotism of one's ideological opponents simply to score sound bytes in the mass media, just as it is anti-American to claim that questioning or criticizing government gives aid and comfort to the enemy? It is surprising that liberals and leftists have yet to loudly make the case that conservatism is anti-Americanism. Just today Tom Delay denounced Nancy Pelosi for daring to criticize the president.
Instead, liberals and Democrats whine that the Bush administration is losing the war of ideas abroad. But they often seem to forget that this war begins at home. There should be no doubt that conservatives understand themselves to be at war with the "secular left," "the enemy within," which they believe is represented by the Democratic Party. But nonetheless, as Kevin Drum points out, their forty year offensive hasn't been particularly successful. The rising tide of conservative anti-Americanism, and the projection thereof onto the ideological opposition, may signal that the movement is on the verge of exhaustion. The fact that conservatives continue to support the Republican Party even as it rides roughshod over their supposed principles is further evidence to support this suspicion. Of course, the same can be said of the liberals' and progressives' allegiance to the Democrat Party. In the end, US citizens, both left and right, are going to have to liberate themselves from the tyranny of the two-party system and the crude logic of a binary politics.
Posted by charles sanson at May 21, 2004 06:19 PMLet it at least be noted that the many examples of Democrats calling Republicans “unpatriotic” originate with Democratic presidential candidates (and their wives, thank you very much Mrs. Heinz-Kerry), congressmen, and other prominent party leaders, including the DNC chairman. The “unAmerican” quotes come from right-wing pundits, bloggers, and others who don’t hold office and are just expressing their own opinions. They’re not even comparable.
DeLay’s comments about Pelosi do not question her patriotism in the least—they just point out her deplorable judgement and the lengths she’ll go to to launch vitriolic personal attacks without regard for anybody and anything but her own domestic political agenda.
Posted by: Martin at May 22, 2004 12:50 AM“You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.”
-George W. Bush
While I know this quote was directed at the UN and other countries, this is the type of rhetoric that is typical of this administration and I for one felt that he wasn’t just talking to France…
DaveO, it was directed toward the Taliban!
It comes from a speech after 9-11 and before the Afghan war. Just look at the speech. It was definitely NOT directed to France or the UN, and even more emphatically NOT directed at domestic opponents. The reason the left keeps using that quote, lifted totally out of context, is that that’s the best they can do to keep up their self-image as martyrs for patriotic dissent. How can you compare that out-of-context quote to the dozens of times Democrats have called Republicans unpatriotic?
The “unAmerican” quotes come from right-wing pundits, bloggers, and others who don’t hold office…
You’re right Martin. All conservative politicians realize that liberals and Democrats are the most American Americans and the most patriotic patriots. It’s only the conservative pundits who are calling the left un-American to hide their shame that their leaders can’t be as American and patriotic as the left.
Hooray for you, Martin, for getting over it and exposing the truth.
Haha! I just realized that Martin, DaveO, & I just made your point, charles. LOL
Hurry up and get a viable 3rd party candidate. We need one. :)
I realized the same thing as I logged off last night. LOL. I guess Martin brings it out in us.
Posted by: DaveO at May 22, 2004 03:53 PMThis thread is hilarious. Thanks!
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at May 22, 2004 11:54 PM“I just realized that Martin, DaveO, & I just made your point, charles. LOL.”
Ha. To tell you the truth I hadn’t realized it until you pointed it out. Thanks for the help.
“Hurry up and get a viable 3rd party candidate. We need one.”
Sorry, I wish I could, but I can’t do it all by myself. There are literally hundreds of political parties in the United States. Whether you’re a liberal or conservative, left or right, it is likely that you’d be able to find one which is more in tune with your views than either the Republican or Democratic Party is. The Party Directory at Politics 1 is a good place to start.
Posted by: charles at May 23, 2004 12:49 AMwe might as well continue the tit for tat, otherwise we’ll have to actually discuss real issues.
So Martin, while I agree that the left (Hillary, Heinz, etc) shouldn’t claim the right officially calls them “unpatriotic”, you have to admit that the sentiment exists. Or is that just more rabbit hole conspiracy theory we’re being fooled by? I know on a personal basis I’ve been called unpatriotic by numerous conservative friends…even while sober.
And concerning the with us or against us quote, there’s two I can find:
“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”
-George W. Bush http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34782,00.html
“Over time it’s going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity,” he said. “You’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.”
-George W. Bush http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/ret.bush.coalition/index.html
In neither account can I find where he is speaking “toward the Taliban! ” In fact it is more apparent after reading the entire speeches that he is drawing a line in the global sand. If you sincerely think that a) this wasn’t meant as a threat to any nation that defies the wishes of the US by being inactive and that b) the underlying message wasn’t directed at all people in all of those nations, including our own, then I don’t know what else to say.
It is this black and white rhetoric that only amplifies our national binary politics and forces people to take sides. It is this all or nothing type of policy that is quickly losing us our relationships with allies around the world. It is this with-us-or-against-us attitude that is going to hurt us in the long run.
Speaking of with-us-or-against-us, the Sopranos is on, Bada Bing!
I agree that the left (Hillary, Heinz, etc) shouldn’t claim the right officially calls them “unpatriotic”,
Come on, DaveO! There is a systematic Republican movement to paint Dems and liberals as traitors.
Just like Clark could have squelched Moore for calling Bush a deserter if he really didn’t think Bush was a deserter, Bush could publicly or quietly ask Savage, Rush, Coulter, Novak, Kristol, et al to stop if he really thought Dems were patriotic.
Bush’s silence encourages the defaming to continue while allowing Martin to split hairs between “official” and “non-official” Republican dogma.
If there’s one thing that really drives me nuts, it’s Democrats who try too hard to be “reasonable”. Every time it happens, conservatives use it to deflect or defuse legitimate opposition and criticism.
If it negatively effects their chances to win at any cost, Republicans just don’t give a crap about being reasonable.
[Haha! I almost qualified that by saying - the current Republican leadership just doesn’t give… - But that would have been too reasonable. Martin would naver have made the distinction. ;)]
I heard an amazingly fallacious construct on right wing radio this morning and just had to share it. It goes like this:
1. Right wingers are Christian, which gives them a moral compass, which in turn makes them pro-America and pro-Patriotic.
2. Left wingers are non-Christian or anti-Christian, which takes away their moral compass, which in turn makes them anti-American and hate all things American.
This, mind you, from a talk show host claiming to be JEWISH (Dennis Prager).
It’d have been a knee-slapper had it not been apparent that people were accepting this theory without question, in the listener audience.
A left-winger by definition would only be “anti” a right-wing version of America, and vice-versa.
And the original big Christian, a guy allegedly named Jesus, he was a lot more left-wing than he’s painted in Bible Belt churches these days, with his social libertarian bucking of Pharisaic law, implementing his own form of Universal Health Care (healing the sick without payment), and pacifistic attitude toward their main enemy, Rome. A right-winger in Jesus’ day would have been more like Bar Abas, or more like Rome itself.
Hope? H*ll yes! Spread the word that a vote for Nader is a protest vote aginst the same old c**p the Dem’s and Rep’b are putting out. IMHO, most people don’t vote because they don’t like the two main choices so why bother. Explain that a vote for Nader is mor then a demonstration agingst the two major parties.
Posted by: larry at June 2, 2004 01:34 AMThe only “wasted” vote is one that doesn’t reflect your own true personal political will.
I will vote my own agenda, if I have to use write-in candidates to do so. Better a party of one and able to sleep at night, than a party of many and wonder “what hath mob psychology wrought?”
Posted by: Ciggy at June 2, 2004 01:55 PM
