Defeat in Victory Bush v. Bush
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 11-02-04 2:31pm (Pacific Time)
Defeat in Victory
As I write this the outcome of the election is unknown. Yet certainly we lose. Lose whether Mr. Bush is returned to office or not. Why? Because it should not have been so close.
Why was it so close?
Let me ask you: Why is there so much animosity for our Party? This is why it is so close.
The visceral hatred of Mr. Bush results from his inability to express himself. Rather than simply accepting that he is not a persuasive public speaker, (as we do), our opponents project all their fears and loathing on to him. They are quite wrong to do so. Yet this is why there is such hatred for us, this is why the election was so close.
Why do they project their inner most fears and loathing on to us? Because we do not engage them in rational discourse. This is why Mr. Bush’s failure at public speaking is so damaging. They infer from this that rational discourse with us is not possible. Without any out let, without any possibility for reasoning, they turn to anger. This is why there is such hatred, this is why the election is so close.
I was listening to Rush Limbaugh, (the king of talk radio), and he was describing the Democrat Party in a way that I could not recognize. It was the straw man Democrat Party. “They just want to take our money,” he was saying. O’Reilly also has reverted to explaining all the costs of government as resulting from drunken lazy people. “Should my tax dollars go for that?” he asks with the sophistry one has come to expect from him. (This from a man who has just paid a woman $10 million for the pleasure of talking dirty to her. And he complains about is measly tax dollars? $10 million is one third of his capital. No one has ever proposed a 33.33% capital tax! (Well, a fool and his money.) But I digress.)
This is why there is such hatred for the Republican Party, and Mr. Bush, and this is why the election was so close. Because of people like Mr. Limbaugh and O’Reilly, and their straw man arguments. Every judge knows the importance of summing up. If he fails to show that he has heard and understood the arguments, no matter how carefully he reasons his opinion, there will be dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction not with the law, or even his interpretation, but dissatisfaction because the aggrieved party will feel that there has been a miscarriage of justice, simply because they have not been heard.
Limbaugh can disparage the Democrats all he wants, but if no one feels that his description of the Democrats is fair, an accurate representation of the Party they know, then his yammerings come off flat, and what is more, they show the opposition that discourse is not possible. They are not being heard.
So too when the President inarticulately discusses the issues it enrages the opposition because they become hopeless. What good is rational discourse, this man is not listening? He can not even explain his own position, what good does it do us to debate? This is why the election is so close.
This is why even if Mr. Bush is returned to office we lose. Simply because the vote is close, we lose.
And if he is returned what consolation can we have for the next four years? This is the President who famously said that what he liked about being President was that he did not have to explain himself to people, they have to explain themselves to him. Now that he no longer faces reelection does anyone suppose he will take time to talk to us? Even when he did face reelection he arrived at his first debate obviously unprepared to discuss the affairs of state.
For all of 2002 he failed to plan for the new Iraqi government, and appointed Mr. Bremmer, the 3, to his post only when the tanks were actually advancing on Baghdad. Did anyone discuss the new government with him? Were there intense discussions, even debates, within his administration? Clearly not. Why clearly? Look at how poorly he discusses these issues even during his reelection campaign. Do you suppose he will now become expansive, and inform us of his reasoning now that he is no longer answerable to us for anything other than an impeachment trial in the Senate?
This is why no matter what the outcome tonight, or tomorrow, or tomorrow, or all our tomorrows we have lost this election. We can look forward to four more years of being ignored, neglected, abandoned. And we are his friends! The opposition can be expected to seethe for the next four years. Who can blame them.
For get about my claims against the IRS. Who can expect that this administration will review the IRS’s disclosure of my name to the very criminals they had asked me to assist them in investigating? No I am serious. That was in 1996. I do not expect this Republican administration to help me. They are if anything contemptuous of me. I understand that.
No, not me. But consider Laurie Mylrorie. Has anyone at the White House ever even called her to discuss her views? Not invite her over to lunch with the President. Not give her an official assignment. No, not that. Just talk to her? Of course not. Her proposal to genetically identify the Baluchi not only has been ignored, one doubts that this administration has even read her book, not withstanding that it has Bush in the title: Bush v. The Beltway. Forget about me, Mylrorie is a Harvard trained scholar, a former faculty member of the War College, and they ignore her too. This is why we lose. This is why the election was so close. This is why they hate us. There does not appear that there is anyone with whom one can reason.
And even when our troops arrived in Iraq, without a government to install, still this administration appears to have had no plan. No survey and census was made of the people of Iraq. (So how do you know who is who?) No mass arrests of populations in open defiance. (“We are Americans, we do not just round up people,” recall the general said.) No constitution and parliament was established for over a year. The government that was established, the Governing Council, was then almost immediately destabilized by, if not exactly “our” government, at least it was destabilized by factions within our government, at State and the CIA.
Why this result? The most powerful country in the world, arrives in Iraq after a series of lightning attacks, a brilliant military campaign: And then what? What now? Nothing. And why nothing? For the same reason the general said “We are Americans, we do not just round up people.” That general could not even consider that we could “legally” engage in a policy of mass arrests. Why?
Well you tell me. Why didn’t Mr. Bush have a constitution and a government ready to go? A parliament of 200 exiles for example? No? Not exiles? Oh, ok, then how about 200 exiled Iraqis and 200 Iraqis that had remained in Iraq during the old regime? No? How about 2 to 1 then? 200 exiles and 400 locals, a parliament of 600? Or 3 to 1? 200 exiles and 600 chosen from those who lived under the old regime?
Or do you think an 800 member parliament is too many? Could we have done that? Oh, no. We couldn’t just do that. We have to wait for “elections.” No, we have to wait for “free elections.” Yes that is the old formula. More troops and “free elections.” (Elections in a war zone? Oh, yes, we are Americans we have to have our “free elections.” That is what “democracy” is all about, right? Not a culture carefully and patiently nurtured over years. No. we have instant coffee, why not “instant democracy?” This is your limited, culturally conditioned, ethnocentric view. And who is there to contradict you? No one. This is the problem. )
Your thinking that we can not simply set up a government is an example of the intellectual limitations caused by the failure of our public discourse. Not only does Mr. Bush fail at debate for lack of practice, but we, because of our lack of experience of listening to well reasoned arguments fail to apprehend the world and the possibilities it presents. Because we have not had an effective executive, or anyone, who will take to the lectern and argue persuasively for our positions, the public remains ignorant of the possibilities, unprepared for the dangers, and also this is why the opposition is so angry, lost in this darkness created by ineptitude they project their worst fears on to us.
And this is the problem. We were the victors. We could have done anything. We did nothing but destabilize our own “government.” Not just the Governing Council, (whom we have now thrown to the wolves), but our own government: the Bush administration.
This is why we lose no matter who “wins” the election. Mr. Bush lacked the confidence to impose a government on Iraq not withstanding the military victory. How do I know he lacked the confidence? Because he lacked even the confidence to debate the issues during the campaign. Just like that general who said “We are Americans, we do not just round up people,” our leadership felt constrained and limited in what was “permissible.”
That general went to the same schools as the rest of our society. Schools that are controlled by the same liberal intellectual elite that has poisoned so much of the American establishment. The State Department warned against a “government in exile” before we actually invaded and so Mr. Bush dutifully waited until the tanks were rolling before he appointed Mr. Bremmer even though this failure may have cost him his reelection. The CIA actively worked against the administration but no action was, has been, or ever will be taken against the CIA. (Mr. Robert Baer pointed out actual corruption in the CIA in the awarding of multi-million dollar contracts but does anyone expect that any action was taken to investigate his charges? Of course not.)
But this failure of insight, of foresight, of leadership, is not just a problem of this administration, or of Mr. Bush, there is here a fundamental failure of intellectual honesty and integrity. For too long the conservatives, the Republicans have been arguing against straw men, emulating Limbaugh and O’Reilly. Too long we have failed to have honest and frank debates. Like Mr. Bush hiding in his oval office we have gotten out of practice. We appear inept and inarticulate.
More fundamentally we appear intellectually dishonest. This is why the election was so close. This is why we lose even if Mr. Bush is returned to office.
William F. Buckley, Jr., used to make it a point not only to have an opponent to whom he gave equal time, (what would be the point otherwise?), but he was also vigilant to make sure he left a third of the time for an interlocutor to carry on an independent examination of the subject.
From William F. Buckley, Jr., to Rush Limbaugh arguing with straw men we have the tableau of intellectual decline. From Ronald Reagan, writing letter after letter propounding his views, to Mr. Bush’s inarticulate ramblings, we have a similar dismal panorama.
This is why the opposition is so passionate in their hatred of us. This is why the election was so close. Why bother to argue or reason if reasoning doesn’t seem to matter?
Politics resolves to a bare struggle for power. Reason is vanquished. This is why we lose.
This is the end of the Republic.
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 11-02-04 2:31pm (Pacific Time)
Defeat in Victory
As I write this the outcome of the election is unknown. Yet certainly we lose. Lose whether Mr. Bush is returned to office or not. Why? Because it should not have been so close.
Why was it so close?
Let me ask you: Why is there so much animosity for our Party? This is why it is so close.
The visceral hatred of Mr. Bush results from his inability to express himself. Rather than simply accepting that he is not a persuasive public speaker, (as we do), our opponents project all their fears and loathing on to him. They are quite wrong to do so. Yet this is why there is such hatred for us, this is why the election was so close.
Why do they project their inner most fears and loathing on to us? Because we do not engage them in rational discourse. This is why Mr. Bush’s failure at public speaking is so damaging. They infer from this that rational discourse with us is not possible. Without any out let, without any possibility for reasoning, they turn to anger. This is why there is such hatred, this is why the election is so close.
I was listening to Rush Limbaugh, (the king of talk radio), and he was describing the Democrat Party in a way that I could not recognize. It was the straw man Democrat Party. “They just want to take our money,” he was saying. O’Reilly also has reverted to explaining all the costs of government as resulting from drunken lazy people. “Should my tax dollars go for that?” he asks with the sophistry one has come to expect from him. (This from a man who has just paid a woman $10 million for the pleasure of talking dirty to her. And he complains about is measly tax dollars? $10 million is one third of his capital. No one has ever proposed a 33.33% capital tax! (Well, a fool and his money.) But I digress.)
This is why there is such hatred for the Republican Party, and Mr. Bush, and this is why the election was so close. Because of people like Mr. Limbaugh and O’Reilly, and their straw man arguments. Every judge knows the importance of summing up. If he fails to show that he has heard and understood the arguments, no matter how carefully he reasons his opinion, there will be dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction not with the law, or even his interpretation, but dissatisfaction because the aggrieved party will feel that there has been a miscarriage of justice, simply because they have not been heard.
Limbaugh can disparage the Democrats all he wants, but if no one feels that his description of the Democrats is fair, an accurate representation of the Party they know, then his yammerings come off flat, and what is more, they show the opposition that discourse is not possible. They are not being heard.
So too when the President inarticulately discusses the issues it enrages the opposition because they become hopeless. What good is rational discourse, this man is not listening? He can not even explain his own position, what good does it do us to debate? This is why the election is so close.
This is why even if Mr. Bush is returned to office we lose. Simply because the vote is close, we lose.
And if he is returned what consolation can we have for the next four years? This is the President who famously said that what he liked about being President was that he did not have to explain himself to people, they have to explain themselves to him. Now that he no longer faces reelection does anyone suppose he will take time to talk to us? Even when he did face reelection he arrived at his first debate obviously unprepared to discuss the affairs of state.
For all of 2002 he failed to plan for the new Iraqi government, and appointed Mr. Bremmer, the 3, to his post only when the tanks were actually advancing on Baghdad. Did anyone discuss the new government with him? Were there intense discussions, even debates, within his administration? Clearly not. Why clearly? Look at how poorly he discusses these issues even during his reelection campaign. Do you suppose he will now become expansive, and inform us of his reasoning now that he is no longer answerable to us for anything other than an impeachment trial in the Senate?
This is why no matter what the outcome tonight, or tomorrow, or tomorrow, or all our tomorrows we have lost this election. We can look forward to four more years of being ignored, neglected, abandoned. And we are his friends! The opposition can be expected to seethe for the next four years. Who can blame them.
For get about my claims against the IRS. Who can expect that this administration will review the IRS’s disclosure of my name to the very criminals they had asked me to assist them in investigating? No I am serious. That was in 1996. I do not expect this Republican administration to help me. They are if anything contemptuous of me. I understand that.
No, not me. But consider Laurie Mylrorie. Has anyone at the White House ever even called her to discuss her views? Not invite her over to lunch with the President. Not give her an official assignment. No, not that. Just talk to her? Of course not. Her proposal to genetically identify the Baluchi not only has been ignored, one doubts that this administration has even read her book, not withstanding that it has Bush in the title: Bush v. The Beltway. Forget about me, Mylrorie is a Harvard trained scholar, a former faculty member of the War College, and they ignore her too. This is why we lose. This is why the election was so close. This is why they hate us. There does not appear that there is anyone with whom one can reason.
And even when our troops arrived in Iraq, without a government to install, still this administration appears to have had no plan. No survey and census was made of the people of Iraq. (So how do you know who is who?) No mass arrests of populations in open defiance. (“We are Americans, we do not just round up people,” recall the general said.) No constitution and parliament was established for over a year. The government that was established, the Governing Council, was then almost immediately destabilized by, if not exactly “our” government, at least it was destabilized by factions within our government, at State and the CIA.
Why this result? The most powerful country in the world, arrives in Iraq after a series of lightning attacks, a brilliant military campaign: And then what? What now? Nothing. And why nothing? For the same reason the general said “We are Americans, we do not just round up people.” That general could not even consider that we could “legally” engage in a policy of mass arrests. Why?
Well you tell me. Why didn’t Mr. Bush have a constitution and a government ready to go? A parliament of 200 exiles for example? No? Not exiles? Oh, ok, then how about 200 exiled Iraqis and 200 Iraqis that had remained in Iraq during the old regime? No? How about 2 to 1 then? 200 exiles and 400 locals, a parliament of 600? Or 3 to 1? 200 exiles and 600 chosen from those who lived under the old regime?
Or do you think an 800 member parliament is too many? Could we have done that? Oh, no. We couldn’t just do that. We have to wait for “elections.” No, we have to wait for “free elections.” Yes that is the old formula. More troops and “free elections.” (Elections in a war zone? Oh, yes, we are Americans we have to have our “free elections.” That is what “democracy” is all about, right? Not a culture carefully and patiently nurtured over years. No. we have instant coffee, why not “instant democracy?” This is your limited, culturally conditioned, ethnocentric view. And who is there to contradict you? No one. This is the problem. )
Your thinking that we can not simply set up a government is an example of the intellectual limitations caused by the failure of our public discourse. Not only does Mr. Bush fail at debate for lack of practice, but we, because of our lack of experience of listening to well reasoned arguments fail to apprehend the world and the possibilities it presents. Because we have not had an effective executive, or anyone, who will take to the lectern and argue persuasively for our positions, the public remains ignorant of the possibilities, unprepared for the dangers, and also this is why the opposition is so angry, lost in this darkness created by ineptitude they project their worst fears on to us.
And this is the problem. We were the victors. We could have done anything. We did nothing but destabilize our own “government.” Not just the Governing Council, (whom we have now thrown to the wolves), but our own government: the Bush administration.
This is why we lose no matter who “wins” the election. Mr. Bush lacked the confidence to impose a government on Iraq not withstanding the military victory. How do I know he lacked the confidence? Because he lacked even the confidence to debate the issues during the campaign. Just like that general who said “We are Americans, we do not just round up people,” our leadership felt constrained and limited in what was “permissible.”
That general went to the same schools as the rest of our society. Schools that are controlled by the same liberal intellectual elite that has poisoned so much of the American establishment. The State Department warned against a “government in exile” before we actually invaded and so Mr. Bush dutifully waited until the tanks were rolling before he appointed Mr. Bremmer even though this failure may have cost him his reelection. The CIA actively worked against the administration but no action was, has been, or ever will be taken against the CIA. (Mr. Robert Baer pointed out actual corruption in the CIA in the awarding of multi-million dollar contracts but does anyone expect that any action was taken to investigate his charges? Of course not.)
But this failure of insight, of foresight, of leadership, is not just a problem of this administration, or of Mr. Bush, there is here a fundamental failure of intellectual honesty and integrity. For too long the conservatives, the Republicans have been arguing against straw men, emulating Limbaugh and O’Reilly. Too long we have failed to have honest and frank debates. Like Mr. Bush hiding in his oval office we have gotten out of practice. We appear inept and inarticulate.
More fundamentally we appear intellectually dishonest. This is why the election was so close. This is why we lose even if Mr. Bush is returned to office.
William F. Buckley, Jr., used to make it a point not only to have an opponent to whom he gave equal time, (what would be the point otherwise?), but he was also vigilant to make sure he left a third of the time for an interlocutor to carry on an independent examination of the subject.
From William F. Buckley, Jr., to Rush Limbaugh arguing with straw men we have the tableau of intellectual decline. From Ronald Reagan, writing letter after letter propounding his views, to Mr. Bush’s inarticulate ramblings, we have a similar dismal panorama.
This is why the opposition is so passionate in their hatred of us. This is why the election was so close. Why bother to argue or reason if reasoning doesn’t seem to matter?
Politics resolves to a bare struggle for power. Reason is vanquished. This is why we lose.
This is the end of the Republic.
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home