If you don't like the war, use your remote vote!

Maggie's Farm sees the Lamont victory as a victory for Jihadist appeasement:

...what do the results say? 1. About half of CT Dems are really tired of Iraq on the news. 2. About half of CT Dems are fond of Lieberman, and/or see the war as a necessary evil. None of that is very surprising, but it is a bit sad to see so little party loyalty to one of their party's decent guys.

One final thought: Many, I believe, are ready to throw Israel overboard if it will appease the Jihadists. In my opinion, anything you give these folks just makes them hungry for more.

In that respect, the CT Dems are not that different from many Americans, who seem unable to distinguish real war from television. There is a perception that a war is something that can simply be can be switched off by voting, or that a new channel can be selected.

It's as if people believe their vote is a TV remote.

If you don't like Hezbollah, turn them off!

If you find it unsettling that we are in a proxy war, switch channels!

I guess if voting away reality is the same as using the remote to turn off a reality show, there might as well not be reality!

I mean, it's almost as if there isn't, right?

posted by Eric on 08.09.06 at 11:11 AM










Comments

Gee, I wonder where that "war as not quite real" attitude came from? D'you think Bush's refusal to level with the people, ask for sacrifices, or even raise taxes to pay for the war, might have something to do with it? Or how about Bush telling us that we could defeat terrorism by not changing our consumption habits? And how about Rummy's refusal to admit the real failures of his grand strategy? You think there might be a connection here?

Raging Bee   ·  August 9, 2006 3:39 PM

I agree with the Bee. Bush's plan of having the average American pay no price for this war always reminded me of McNamara's plans along similar lines. Certainly, it might bolster support for the war, but it also puts our troops at a disadvanate, is strategically questionable, increases the debt, and helps to make this another TV war.

Jon Thompson   ·  August 9, 2006 4:00 PM

Let me see if I've got this straight: you're arguing that it's Bush's fault that people don't support the war?

I mean, yeah, he could have done a (much) better job of marketing, but I'm going to have to say guilt for the lack of war support lies far more heavily at certain others' feet.

Beck   ·  August 9, 2006 4:11 PM

I don't know whether Bush can be blamed for this attitude or not. I wasn't thinking about Bush, as I don't think this is "his" war. I suppose the failure to "sell" it properly can be blamed on him, but what about those who never supported it? There is a growing tendency of Americans to wish the entire war out of existence. This has happened through conflation of the war (which is between Islamofascism and the West) and the war in Iraq. Bush and his personality can be blamed (a lot of people hated him all along, but I think now he has become a scapegoat for war fatigue), and the United States can be voted out of Iraq, but I think that will only make things worse.

Eric Scheie   ·  August 9, 2006 4:51 PM

I was just saying that I think that Bush's attempt to make the war as removed from people's lives has, well, removed people from any connection to the war. The "TV war" phenomenon is, I think, at least partly a result of this.

Jon Thompson   ·  August 9, 2006 8:39 PM

Well, arguably a lot of the domestic propaganda (like in WWII) that would make the Iraq War more immediate for Americans is frowned upon today. Can you imagine what the Left would do if the Bush Administration put out something like "This Is Your War"? The Left would immediately cry "Fascists!" with even more fervor than they do now.

Cervus   ·  August 9, 2006 9:16 PM

Cervus has it right; any overbearing attempt by the govt. to promote 'support' for the war by the means that were used in WWI or WWII would just freak everybody out.

I don't think, as J.Thomson asserts, that the Administration has tried to make the war 'removed' from people's lives at all. That pretty much lies squarely with the media.

You can go to the Dept of Defense's website, and sign up to get their press releases by email--and you will get more information than you can handle. If the media doesn't report what's out there, how is that the Administration's fault?

Eric Blair   ·  August 10, 2006 8:30 AM

Bush can indeed be held responsible for the voters' declining support for his war. When a policy is seen to be failing -- especially something so costly as war followed by long-term occupation and reconstruction -- people will naturally question it, and lose their desire to continue with it. Why send people to get killed if they can't seem to make any progress? If Rumsfeld had shown an ounce of competence, and had sent enough troops to keep order after the Iraqi army was crushed (or, better yet, if he had invaded a country that actually had something to do with al Qaeda), then things would look better now, and Bush and his war would have far more solid support than they have now. NONE of this is the fault of the pacifist or anti-American left, whose credibility is only increasing as Bush's failures as a war-leader become apparent. The resurgence of antiwar sentiment is a symptom, not a cause, of our problems in Iraq.

Raging Bee   ·  August 10, 2006 1:10 PM

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits