Monday, November 08, 2004

Thomas Frank's op-ed piece in the New York Times reiterates the theme of his book, What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America: Republicans keep winning, in the heartland and in presidential elections, because they are better at making ordinary Americans believe that they embrace the values of the common people, even as they continue to support the policies that help the rich. The "conservative revolt...is an uprising of the common people whose long-term economic effect has been to shower riches upon the already wealthy and degrade the lives of the very people who are rising up."

The Democrats have not gotten this point, apparently. It doesn't matter how "centrist" the Democratic Party is, or how many times it pushes itself to the right. People like Kerry just cannot convince the folks in Kansas that he is one of them. But apparently people like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney can--even though they are so wealthy they never have to work another day in their lives if they don't want to. They do it by convincing Americans in the heartland that they "share their values."

Paul Freedman doesn't buy this argument. He says Bush won because a majority of voters thought he was better at fighting terrorism. I think he's right that terrorism is the wild card issue that tipped the balance in an election where "moral values" was no more popular as a voter concern than it had been in previous elections. But Freedman's argument still does not explain why 51% of the Americans who voted believed that Bush was better at fighting terrorism than Kerry would be, given the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that the Bush administration used fraudulent intelligence to justify the war. It's inexplicable to me that, despite the reality of escalating violence in Iraq, more acts of terrorism than before the war, and Osama bin Laden's continued existence, so many Americans still believe that Bush has made us safer. It seems to me there's some other factor involved here that I just haven't found yet.

So when all is said and done, I have to agree with Katha Pollitt's conclusion about what the Democrats should do to defeat the chokehold neoconservatives have on America: I just don't know.

5 comments:

Kathy said...

I have heard this argument many times before, and I don't understand the logic behind it at all. It took years for the terrorists to plan 9/11, so the fact that there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the U.S. since 2001 means very little. Also, people seem to forget that between the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon in 2002, 8 years elapsed. So would you say that Americans were safer in 1996 because there hadn't been a terrorist attack since 1993?

If terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and the many many others that have come into existence since 2001 have taught us anything, it is that they are patient and think long-term, not short-term. They have demonstrated over and over that they have the ability to strike when they want to strike, at times of their choosing. I personally do not feel one bit safer simply because there have been no terrorist attacks within the U.S. since 9/11/01.

Thank you for reading my blog. :-)

Kathy said...

Just a quick correction to my comment -- I should have said that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked in 2001, not 2002.

Kathy said...

Discounting the acts of terror against the men and women who protect our freedom is reprehensible.You're quite right that our views on the issues of terrorism and safety are very different. I'm not going to respond to most of what you wrote, but I do have some questions about the above sentence. Are you implying here that the people in Iraq don't have the right to defend themselves against the U.S. invasion? Don't they have the same right to self-defense and to fight for their country as Americans do? I don't agree that U.S. troops are fighting for my freedom; in fact, in many significant ways, I am less free now than I have ever been before. That is not to trivialize the enormity of the sacrifice U.S. troops are making. They are being killed and wounded and many are being psychologically and emotionally scarred for life, to attack a country that did nothing to us. Those soldiers' own government betrayed them. But that said, it is the United States that invaded Iraq; not the other way around. Iraqis have been terrorized for almost 2 years now by U.S. bombs, tanks, guns, and occupation forces. What is it that you expect when the most powerful country in the world attacks a country that has no military at all worth speaking of? The insurgents are fighting U.S. troops with the weapons they have. They don't have fighter jets and bombs and tanks. Guerrilla warfare is the classic military choice of those who do not have powerful state militaries. What else do you expect them to do? Did you really expect that U.S. troops would encounter no resistance? That Iraqis would just roll over and let themselves be invaded and welcome the invaders? Would you welcome invasion by a foreign country and not resist?

Kathy said...

You are probably correct by not responding to most of what I posted since its totally discredits your stance that the U.S. has only been attacked in 1993 and in 2001 by terrorists. That's not why I didn't respond to most of what you said. I just think we are too far apart in our views on this issue to make discussion productive. I don't understand your thought processes, and you don't understand mine. I'll give just one example of what I mean. You give a long list of terrorist acts against U.S. interests abroad, in addition to the two that happened in the continental United States. You say that this proves the invasion of Afghanistan and of Iraq have made Americans safer, because there have been no other attacks on U.S. soil or on U.S. embassies since Oct. 2001 (which is when Bush invaded Afghanistan). This makes no sense at all, in my view, because there have been dozens and dozens and dozens of terrorist attacks on U.S. interests abroad in the last 3 years. If you want more details, look at the book "Imperial Hubris" by Mike Scheuer. He is a senior CIA officer who was in charge of the unit on Osama bin Laden; he published his book under "Anonymous" but recently went public. He lists pages and pages of terrorist attacks on U.S. interests since 2001. In addition to this, the list of terrorist attacks you posted happened over a span of 25 years. You list (if I counted correctly) 16 terrorist acts that took place over a span of about 25 years. So how can you logically argue that Americans are safer because of Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, when those invasions took place within a span of only 3 years? It's beyond me to understand that. The U.S. suffered scores of terrorist attacks for 25 years, and you conclude that America is safer now because there have been none in THREE years? I'm sorry, your thinking is beyond my comprehension. But in fairness, I'm sure my thinking is beyond *your* comprehension, too.

Your position that the United States invaded Iraq is preposterous since the vast majority of Iraqis look upon the United States as liberators and not invaders.I think that was probably true at the start of the invasion, when Saddam Hussein was first overthrown; but after 2 years of occupation, horrendous chaos and violence, over 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed by the U.S. invasion, and an "interim president" who used to be a CIA agent for the U.S. and is widely viewed by Iraqis as a U.S. puppet, I think America has long, long since worn out its welcome. Even many troops over there have said that Iraqis don't want us there, and actually hate us. That said, I will look at the blog you mentioned; and here is a blog that you can look at, for another Iraqi point of view on the invasion. It is http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com.

To claim that the insurgents are defending THEIR country is equally ludicrous as a large number of them are not even Iraqi nationals but terrorists from other countries around the world.Actually, there was an article in yesterday's Los Angeles Times that the U.S. Marine commanders of the Fallujah invasion have concluded, from their interrogation of captured insurgent fighters in Fallujah, that most of the insurgents--in Iraq in general, not just Fallujah--are NOT from other countries. Most of them are Iraqis. The link to this article is in yesterday's posts in my blog.

The Iraqis who are fighting FOR their country have joined with the U.S. and other multinational forces and are fighting side-by-side with them for the much wanted democracy in their country.Which they will never get, as long as the Bush administration, and/or future U.S. administrations, continue to orchestrate the political process in Iraq to get an outcome acceptable to the U.S. government.

I am just wondering, Damsel, if we should agree to disagree. I don't think either one of us is likely to change our minds on these issues. I understand that your views are deeply and passionately held; and so are mine. I respect your views; but more important, I respect your right to voice them freely. May we both continue to be able to say exactly what we believe.

Kathy said...

I hope that your son stays safe and that he comes home soon. It must be very hard to have your child in such danger.

And thank you for your nice comments about my debating style. I think the same is true of you.

All the best to you.