<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Iraq: A Recap</title>
	<atom:link href="http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2005/07/01/iraq-a-recap/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2005/07/01/iraq-a-recap/</link>
	<description>Robert Fischer and Brian Hurt on Punditry, Programming Languages, and Other Religious Issues</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:27:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: bhurt-aw</title>
		<link>http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2005/07/01/iraq-a-recap/comment-page-1/#comment-9</link>
		<dc:creator>bhurt-aw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:32:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/?p=12#comment-9</guid>
		<description>The reason we on the left keep "focusing" on the PR diaster on the moment is because we have too.  We haven't lost the forest for the trees.  There has been a steady drumbeat from the left, including me, that hasn't changed it's fundamental tune- the war was illegal, that it was a crime, that it was stupid, that we shouldn't have gone in, and that we should get out.  This was just dismissed as Bush hating (like the right never hated Clinton).  But if we simply ignored the talking point of the day, it'd be we who would appear out of touch.  We may have a steady drum beat- but we're still dancing to the conservative's tune.

As for the Republicans lying- duh!  The Republicans have figured out that although you can't fool all the people ever, you can fool enough of the people enough to stay in power.  They don't need to fool everyone, they just need to fool 51%.  Which is much easier.

So in three years, Bush won't be eligable to run again.  Then comes the critical question: will you beleive the fresh faced candidate they put forth.  He likely won't use the same terms as Bush- you won't hear "I'm a uniter not a divider" or "compassionate conservative".  But he'll be using terms that mean the same thing.  There will be talk about traditional values, and being in touch with real Americans, and warm puppies and fluffy kittens.  Why not?  It worked for Bush.

Eisenhower got elected only after 20 years of Democratic dominance (1932-1952), and it was Eisenhower only because anyone more radical to the right wouldn't have stood a chance.  In fact, the dominance of the New Deal over American politics continued for another 16 years, until 1968.  All the while the forces of corporatism (aka fascism) and religious fanaticism were working their way back into power.  Bush is just the latest and worst example of a trend that dates back quite some time.  Indeed, he's a return to the late 19th century style goverment (teapot dome and railroad barrons, anyone?).  So I could make the argument that the New Deal era (roughly 1932-1968) was the aberration, and not the normalcy.  

Except that's not really true.  The robber barrons of the late 19th/early 20th century mainly just wanted the federal goverment (and all goverments) to get out of their way, and let them loot and pillage to their heart's content.  What changed was the idea of using the federal goverment as a way, as a tool, to loot and pillage.  Which is why the federal goverment is not getting smaller under Bush, but is instead bloating like crazy.  It's fullfilling it's new role of reverse Robin Hood- stealing (taxing) from the poor and giving to the rich.  The reasons Bush gave for the invasion are obviously bullshit- but there are real reasons why they wanted to do this.  One of the reason definately was so that Halliburton, Bechtel, the Carlyle Group, etc., could rake in billions of dollars in contracts which they can then fail to fullfill.  It's a way to funnel money from the taxpayers to the wealthy.

Which means it's not going to go away.  The only thing that will put it into submission is another 20 years in the political wilderness.  The next Republican presidential candidate- oh, and by the way, this also applies to their congressional, senatorial, and gubenitorial candidates- will still be of this faction.  Will still be on the side of the corporatists and the American Taliban.  No matter what they say, they'll be lying.  They won't be able to tell the truth, they'd never get elected if they did.  It's predictable, like the sun rising in the east.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason we on the left keep &#8220;focusing&#8221; on the PR diaster on the moment is because we have too.  We haven&#8217;t lost the forest for the trees.  There has been a steady drumbeat from the left, including me, that hasn&#8217;t changed it&#8217;s fundamental tune- the war was illegal, that it was a crime, that it was stupid, that we shouldn&#8217;t have gone in, and that we should get out.  This was just dismissed as Bush hating (like the right never hated Clinton).  But if we simply ignored the talking point of the day, it&#8217;d be we who would appear out of touch.  We may have a steady drum beat- but we&#8217;re still dancing to the conservative&#8217;s tune.</p>
<p>As for the Republicans lying- duh!  The Republicans have figured out that although you can&#8217;t fool all the people ever, you can fool enough of the people enough to stay in power.  They don&#8217;t need to fool everyone, they just need to fool 51%.  Which is much easier.</p>
<p>So in three years, Bush won&#8217;t be eligable to run again.  Then comes the critical question: will you beleive the fresh faced candidate they put forth.  He likely won&#8217;t use the same terms as Bush- you won&#8217;t hear &#8220;I&#8217;m a uniter not a divider&#8221; or &#8220;compassionate conservative&#8221;.  But he&#8217;ll be using terms that mean the same thing.  There will be talk about traditional values, and being in touch with real Americans, and warm puppies and fluffy kittens.  Why not?  It worked for Bush.</p>
<p>Eisenhower got elected only after 20 years of Democratic dominance (1932-1952), and it was Eisenhower only because anyone more radical to the right wouldn&#8217;t have stood a chance.  In fact, the dominance of the New Deal over American politics continued for another 16 years, until 1968.  All the while the forces of corporatism (aka fascism) and religious fanaticism were working their way back into power.  Bush is just the latest and worst example of a trend that dates back quite some time.  Indeed, he&#8217;s a return to the late 19th century style goverment (teapot dome and railroad barrons, anyone?).  So I could make the argument that the New Deal era (roughly 1932-1968) was the aberration, and not the normalcy.  </p>
<p>Except that&#8217;s not really true.  The robber barrons of the late 19th/early 20th century mainly just wanted the federal goverment (and all goverments) to get out of their way, and let them loot and pillage to their heart&#8217;s content.  What changed was the idea of using the federal goverment as a way, as a tool, to loot and pillage.  Which is why the federal goverment is not getting smaller under Bush, but is instead bloating like crazy.  It&#8217;s fullfilling it&#8217;s new role of reverse Robin Hood- stealing (taxing) from the poor and giving to the rich.  The reasons Bush gave for the invasion are obviously bullshit- but there are real reasons why they wanted to do this.  One of the reason definately was so that Halliburton, Bechtel, the Carlyle Group, etc., could rake in billions of dollars in contracts which they can then fail to fullfill.  It&#8217;s a way to funnel money from the taxpayers to the wealthy.</p>
<p>Which means it&#8217;s not going to go away.  The only thing that will put it into submission is another 20 years in the political wilderness.  The next Republican presidential candidate- oh, and by the way, this also applies to their congressional, senatorial, and gubenitorial candidates- will still be of this faction.  Will still be on the side of the corporatists and the American Taliban.  No matter what they say, they&#8217;ll be lying.  They won&#8217;t be able to tell the truth, they&#8217;d never get elected if they did.  It&#8217;s predictable, like the sun rising in the east.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
