Thursday, January 20, 2005

Bush Protestors

I could write a long essay about this.. but let me just give me a brief statement.

Over the past year, I have read content from left-leaning web-sites, watched Fahrenheit 9-11 and listened to many rants and songs savaging Bush. I have become numb to it all, but curious about some aspects of this stuff nonetheless. Bush is Hitler, Bush is the number one terrorist, Bush lied, Bush attacked Iraq out of greed, Bush is a tool of the Saudi royal family, the Pentagon wasn't actually hit with a plane etc. ad nauseum. Three loaded questions to ask from this. Do they think that exaggerating the perceived sins of Bush to such a gross degree with falsehood and hyperbole actually convinces people to join their side or do they simply not care that they just polarize the other side? Are they so afraid that they lack a true command of facts or any sort of rhetorical skill that they have to fall back to personal attacks?** Do they care that they lose so much creditability when they talk in this way that people are tuning them or their more reasonable allies make any legitimate complaint of the Bush Administration?

Now I know this seems like a straw-man that I am creating here and the Left does not have a monopoly on irrational zealotry, but who are the vocal ones on that side? Who are the ones who dominate the opposition nowadays? I can find plenty of well-reasoned folks on the left-leaning side including many friends but their voices are just being drown out by these kind of people and I wonder why there isn’t more down to denounce these kind of people. (And no I am not trying to suggest curtailing freedom of speech, last time I checked, freedom of speech meant you could criticize others who criticize those in power as well).

When you take a step-back do you think that party affliation determines the level of your morality or whether you are evil or not? Do you think that one party affiliation really has monopoly on the Truth? I personally have my doubts...

So to end all this, three things: a hastily written missive from Historian Victor David Hanson, Peggy Noonan's critical take on the inaugurationspeech and also a link to an article very germane to what was said today:

“This is the first time that an American president has committed the United States to side with democratic reformers worldwide. The end of the cold war has allowed us such parameters, but the American people also should be aware of the hard and necessary decisions entailed in such idealism that go way beyond the easy rhetoric of calling for change in Cuba, Syria, or Iran-distancing ourselves from the Saudi Royal Family, pressuring the Mubarak dynasty to hold real elections, hoping that a Pakistan can liberalize without becoming a theocracy, and navigating with Putin in matters of the former Soviet republics, all the while pressuring nuclear China, swaggering with cash and confidence, to allow its citizens real liberty. I wholeheartedly endorse the president's historic stance, but also accept that we live in an Orwellian world, where, for example, the liberal-talking Europeans are reactionary-doing realists who trade with anyone who pays and appease anyone who has arms-confident in their culture's ability always to package that abject realpolitik in the highest utopian rhetoric. But nonetheless the president has formally declared that we at least will be on the right side of history and thus we have to let his critics sort of their own moral calculus"

Study on the roots of terrorism...

Peggy Noonan, former Reagan speechwriter, believes that Bush needs to more realistic.

**Note: Contrary to popular belief, creative uses of the word fuck and Bush and throwing snow balls do not actually count as evidence of rhetorical skill.**

| << Home