Saturday, August 06, 2005

Anti-Bush: Two Strategies

Sometimes I think that something like the following is true. See what you think:

There are roughly two strategies those opposed to the administration can adopt. Here they are:

1. Identify the actual errors and crimes of the administration and relentlessly insist that people take them seriously, even if they don't care and don't want to do so.

2. Whine about everything the administration does, twisting even passably decent decisions until they look like errors or crimes.

How's that for prejudicial formulation?

Anyway, I worry that we all have a tendency to slip into the second strategy when we should, in fact, employ the first. Nobody cares that an American election was either stolen or close to stolen? Tough luck. That shouldn't prevent us from reminding people about it. Nobody cares that we were deceived into going to war? Sorry, that doesn't mean it isn't true. Nobody cares that the administration seems to be channelling the spirit of T. D. Lysenko? Well, that's important, and we're not going to shut up about it.

But when others fail to exhibit the outrage that's appropriate in the face of such moral crimes, I fear that we have a tendency to lash out, grasping at straws--a tendency to try to construe other, more innocuous decisions and actions as stupid or evil. Most recently I'd point to the Roberts nomination. I'll grant (in spades) that we have a right to demand more information on the guy, but so far he seems like a plausible choice--and a better choice than we had any right to hope for from this president. To demonize him would be (a) wrong and (b) strategically imprudent.

Incidentally, I hope you stopped with (a) and didn't need to go on to (b). But let me explain just in case: When those of us in the anti-Bush crowd complain about things we have no real right to complain about, we merely give ammunition to the pro-Bush crowd. We end up pushing weak and easily-defeated criticisms. Those in the pro-Bush crowd can then (unsurprisingly) easily defeat them, and then say "see how irrational those people are, and how weak are their criticisms?" And that's the last thing we need. It casts a shadow over our strong criticisms as well.

So I say we stick to the first strategy. It's the virtuous one, and it's the more effective one. When Bush does something right--or at least innocuous--we acknowledge that. But we relentlessly tell the truth about his crimes and errors, even when our fellow citizens don't want to hear it.

8 Comments:

Blogger rilkefan said...

Who's freaking out about Robers?

When has Bush done "something right"? Oh, yeah, we've sort of rescinded our pro-torture policy. Or have we?

12:01 PM  
Blogger rilkefan said...

Roberts...

12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the more effective one"

Oh, so that's how the Republicans took control in DC.

5:05 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

Permit me to encourage you to stay the course with #2, then, O Dookie...

The electorate has decided that the only thing worse than Republicans are Democrats, despite the former's best efforts to prove them wrong. But I would not want to stop you from proving them right.

Keep up the good work. ;-)

6:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's your problem with my net-name? Are you an enraged Zappa epigon?

You don't know me well enough to play these games, so be nice or stfu.

9:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cut and pasted from the other thread, on which I posted it mistakenly:

tvd,

The Reps have just learned how to work they system better:

Total votes in 2004 Senate races:

D - 44,014,943
R - 39,920,562

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/senate/full.list/

I'm too lazy to do the math for the 2000 and 2002 races, as well as the House numbers. But wanna bet they don't differ by much, and if they do, there's no way Reps in Congress have received more votes than Dems?

Also, Dems have received more votes than Reps in three out of the last four Presidentials.

And if Rep Presidential voters actually knew what they were voting for, you might be able to just keep your rhetorical head above water:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

Please remember what I said:

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."

10:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Winston,

The way you identify the two strategies requires an objective determination of what is an error or crime and what is a passably decent decision. Some critics may see clear error in the same action that other see as passably decent. If Bush opponents concentrate only on the most egregious behavior of the administration and give a pass to the bad stuff that does not rise to the level of really awful, the administration will have free reign to lead the country slowly down a dangerous path. A policy that is only passably decent should not be immune from criticism solely for tactical reasons. Public discourse deserves a better filter.

10:05 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Good point, DLev. Though I didn't mean that we should lay off the little stuff...just that we shouldn't complain about the o.k. stuff.

6:33 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home