Divide
Over at TPM (link on the right), Josh Marshall raised the question of what was it, exactly, that brought the Junta down? Was it Iraq? Katrina? Social Security? All of the above? Well, I do have an answer for him: it was all of it and it was none of it. I do have to explain that, right?
See, In the Bush/Rove political machine, they like to divide the electorate. The more they can make it 'us or them,' the better they like it. What happens when political parties are polarized (in a two-party system) is that the choice between them becomes a much bigger leap for voters. The Bush message is: "you're either with us or against us."
And that's not just for terrorists or foreign countries; that's for voters and members of Congress. Your choice, as presented by Bush/Rove, is to vote the straight ticket or be a terrorist symp. They sucked the air out of the middle of the political process and told voters: be one one side or the other - and those guys are wimpy lazy weenies who want to psychoanalyze terrorists while we want to kill them. Do you want to be on the winning team?
Congress was part of this. The Senate and House both fell into lockstep with the Leader because there wasn't an inch of middle ground. "Vote our straight ticket or we'll bury you." It was even worse for them in some way, because I think their choices were clearer: go along with absolutely everything or else lose your committee seat and funding and lobbyist money and eventually your job.
Look at Collins and Snowe and Spectre. They are the enabling moderates of the extreme right in the Senate. Of course they had the choice to buck the system - but what do you think Frist and Rove were whispering in their ears? 'Oppose us and we'll bury you.'
As with most of their hackery, this effort was geometrically more effective after 9/11. Then they could really play the fear card. I think their edge in 02 and 04 was a Rove-designed voting booth moment. Can I really pull the lever for a Democrat? Can I risk not being on the winning side of this? But the turning point has been a function of those same divisive tactics.
After Katrina and Social Security and as Iraq has deteriorated, people have jumped to the other side. If it's one or the other, it'll be the other. The Bush team has proven to be incompetent and greedy and bloodthirsty. Nobody wants to stand with that, not even a lot of the rightist followers from 04.
Now, the more they push the divide, the more they isolate themselves on the losing side.
Democrats have to keep pushing and let the divide be there as long as the authoritarian executive is around. There can be no 'bipartisanship' with the Bush rightists - they are in it for the win, no matter what.
Only now, the more they suck the air out of the middle, the more they trap themselves on the wrong side.
Just my two cents.
See, In the Bush/Rove political machine, they like to divide the electorate. The more they can make it 'us or them,' the better they like it. What happens when political parties are polarized (in a two-party system) is that the choice between them becomes a much bigger leap for voters. The Bush message is: "you're either with us or against us."
And that's not just for terrorists or foreign countries; that's for voters and members of Congress. Your choice, as presented by Bush/Rove, is to vote the straight ticket or be a terrorist symp. They sucked the air out of the middle of the political process and told voters: be one one side or the other - and those guys are wimpy lazy weenies who want to psychoanalyze terrorists while we want to kill them. Do you want to be on the winning team?
Congress was part of this. The Senate and House both fell into lockstep with the Leader because there wasn't an inch of middle ground. "Vote our straight ticket or we'll bury you." It was even worse for them in some way, because I think their choices were clearer: go along with absolutely everything or else lose your committee seat and funding and lobbyist money and eventually your job.
Look at Collins and Snowe and Spectre. They are the enabling moderates of the extreme right in the Senate. Of course they had the choice to buck the system - but what do you think Frist and Rove were whispering in their ears? 'Oppose us and we'll bury you.'
As with most of their hackery, this effort was geometrically more effective after 9/11. Then they could really play the fear card. I think their edge in 02 and 04 was a Rove-designed voting booth moment. Can I really pull the lever for a Democrat? Can I risk not being on the winning side of this? But the turning point has been a function of those same divisive tactics.
After Katrina and Social Security and as Iraq has deteriorated, people have jumped to the other side. If it's one or the other, it'll be the other. The Bush team has proven to be incompetent and greedy and bloodthirsty. Nobody wants to stand with that, not even a lot of the rightist followers from 04.
Now, the more they push the divide, the more they isolate themselves on the losing side.
Democrats have to keep pushing and let the divide be there as long as the authoritarian executive is around. There can be no 'bipartisanship' with the Bush rightists - they are in it for the win, no matter what.
Only now, the more they suck the air out of the middle, the more they trap themselves on the wrong side.
Just my two cents.
posted by fiduciary at 9:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home