In his much-heralded (by him) speech to the National Endowment for Democracy yesterday, President Bush rolled out some of his old (and a little bit of new) pugnaciousness, along with a good few of his always noticeable smirks.
Will the speech help him deal with daily collapsing poll numbers?
Among the new rhetorical flourishes that Bush used were his validation of the term “Islamo-fascism” to describe the threat the US faces. Among the old ones were his calls to action against both Iran and Syria, and his attempt to link Islamic radicalism in people’s minds with both Hitlerite Nazism (as in, “Islamo-fascism”) and with the evils of communism…
- Also, as commenter John C. noted in the comments section of this recent JWN post, it is remarkable how many of the accusations that Bush made against Bin Laden could also be made against himself… I particularly liked these ones that John identified:
- These are people who:
– “exploit local conflicts to build a culture of victimization in which someone else is always to blame and violence is always the solution”
– “exploit modern technology to multiply their destructive power”
– “target nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence”
– are “elitist, led by a self-appointed vanguard that presumes to speak for the . . . masses”
– have as their chief visionary a man “who grew up in wealth and privilege” and encourages poor people to become killers, “though he never offers to go along for the ride”…
Anyway, back to the falling poll numbers. The CBS poll conducted October 3-5 found that 58% of all (US) adults polled disapproved “of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president”, while only 37% approved. That 58% is an all-time high for disapproval of his job performance, the numbers having risen continuously since a poll at the end of July– i.e., since before Hurrican Katrina.
Concerning Bush’s handling of Iraq, specifically the disapproval is even stronger: now at an all-time high of 64%, according to that same poll.
Asked whether, “Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?”, 55% of respondents now say “Should have stayed out”– up from 31% back in December 2003.
Then this:
- “Should the United States troops stay in Iraq as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy, even if it takes a long time, or should U.S. troops leave Iraq as soon as possible, even if Iraq is not completely stable?”
Opting for “Leave asap” were 59% of all respondents, as opposed to 36% saying “stay as long as it takes.”
These poll numbers are really good news. They would be even better if we had an opposition party in the country capable of taking advantage of the voters’ judgments.
But what can Bush do about them? In other times, he might have sought to reverse the decline by ratcheting up tensions and even launching a little war someplace to distract the public’s attention. I really don’t think that’s an option for him today. And I very much doubt that even a whole series of “stirring” sppeches like yesterday’s could win him more than a couple of points, total, increase in his approval ratings. Meantime, Plame-gate is still threatening to burst into flames and his old friend and enforcer Tom Delay is somewhat on the ropes.
The months ahead could be very interesting ones. They would be even better if we had an opposition party in the country capable of taking advantage of the Bushies’ disarray…
“if we had an opposition party . . .”
Sad, isn’t it? In today’s NTY, neo-liberal media mouthpiece Tom Friedman asks us to “let him explain” our dismal failure to achieve his cherished goals in Iraq. Turns out it’s mostly Saddam’s fault. He fooled us into thinking he had WMD (by truthfully saying he didn’t and letting in inspectors), and cleverly disguised “how devastated Iraqi society really was” (by decades of war and economic sanctions), before we bombed it into smithereens. Friedman laments Bush’s biggest mistake, which was not forcing hundreds of thousands of American kids to become involuntary crusaders in the holy war to remake Iraq in our image (and protect Israel, get gas, etc.). Perhaps the most irritating passage is where he quotes a clueless British trainer of “Iraqi Navy” recruits as saying “How these guys ever fought the Iranians for eight years, I will never know.” This makes me want to grab this trainer (or Friedman) by the throat and shout: “These guys DIDN’T fight the Iranians! The guys who fought the Iranians for eight years are now fighting YOU!!”
With friends like Friedman . . .
Personally I am glad the president has stopped beating around the bush and started to state the obvious. We are on a collision course with radical Islam (islamo-fascism is a fine term if he prefers it), and the fact that his statements can be said by the other side as well are meaningless. The enemy is the enemy regardless of the discourse being similar or not.
David
That’s it David. Keep concentrating real hard. Don’t listen to a bunch of arguments that might confuse you. Just repeat along with W: they’re the ENEMY, they’re the ENEMY, we KNOW they’re the enemy because their religion is different than . . . oh wait . . .
David,
Islamofascist is not a fine term and the only thing that’s obvious is that you’re a gull.
There’s a statue of George Washington in front of the National Gallery in London. In his right hand he’s holding 13 wooden staves, technically known as fasces. You can also see them on American coins. At a risk of belabouring the obvious, each of them represents one of the original 13 colonies. They represent strength through unity. The idea being that each stave by itself is weak and easily snapped. Put together as a bundle they’re very strong.
Put very simply, fascism is a system of government marked by authoritarianism, state control, extreme nationalism, militarism, restrictions on individual freedom, etc. The etc. often includes a leader cult, racism and other pleasantries. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? PATRIOT ACT, hasta la vista posse comitatus, ciao habeus corpus, it was nice knowing you constitution, etc. etc.
And that’s not to mention David hanging by his ankles from “defense” “industry” – I use the terms loosely – stanchions which give him a good pocket-emptying shake getting on for every other pay day. And when gas hits ten – or twenty bucks a gallon – let alone heating costs – and trucking costs – and when the Chinese pull the plug (Bush is “borrowing” the billion and a half dollars a day for his and the neocons’ “war of choice” and that bill’s going to come due one day) – when the dollar finally goes phhhhtt – and a trip to the checkout counter at Walmart could pass for a spree at Nieman Marcus, well do you think you’ll have got it then, David?
But that’s just the wind-up. Here’s the sucker punch. Point is that you need a state to have a fascist “operation”. Al queada – if it exists at all, and I’m beginning to have my doubts – isn’t a state.
For that matter, there’s also quite a pronounced “corporatist” strand to fascism.
Here’s a dictionary definition of the “corporative” state:
economic system inaugurated by the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini in Italy. It was adapted in modified form under other European dictatorships, among them Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist regime in Germany and the Spanish regime of Francisco Franco. Although the Italian system was based upon unlimited government control of economic life, it still preserved the framework of capitalism. Legislation of 1926 and later years set up 22 guilds, or associations, of employees and employers to administer various sectors of the national economy. These were represented in the national council of corporations. The corporations were generally weighted by the state in favor of the wealthy classes, and they served to combat socialism and syndicalism by absorbing the trade union movement. The Italian corporative state aimed in general at reduced consumption in the interest of militarization.
Notice that “reduced consumption”, David. That’s where you come in. That’s for now. The uniform’s probably in the pipeline.
But generally speaking…it’s dollars to doughnuts – no, time to rephrase that, twenty dollar notes to doughnuts is the mot juste – or, if you prefer, oil wells to camel dung that the “corporate Arab world” such as it is wouldn’t touch al Queada with a length of drilling pipe.
So much for Islamofascist. Except to ask the far more interesting question, who thought that term up and pushed like hell to get that particular piece of counterfeit currency into circulation? Frankly, it sounds like a Richard Perleism to me. Or a Bill Kristolism. In a short, a neo-conism.
I think we can take it as read – or do I mean red? – that a pimply Perle (and Kristol and Frum and the rest of them) bandied the term Fascist about in their other-end-of-the-political spectrum adolescence – it is after all the worst sort of puerile shorthand. Well not quite the worst sort. The worst sort is the ugly, nasty, howlingly dishonest refit someone’s given that word. And the huge shove it’s been given to get it into play in its new guise.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the term Islamofascist is the Frankenstein in the chorus line.
You can kiss her, David. She’s all yours, pal.
John C
Thomas Friedman
Fortunately, the NYT has made the pretentious Mr Friedman inaccessible to all but the foolishly spendthrift.
David, the problem it’s not Islam, it’s yours
” Not once was the word “terrorism”used by any official involved in the case.
What Do You Call It?
1. What do you call it when a group of people take the law into their own hands and kill people without a fair trial?
~ A lynching
What do you call it when the United States takes the law into its own hands and kills people without a fair trial?
~ Operation Enduring Freedom
2. What do you call someone who explodes a bomb and kills innocent people?
~ A terrorist
What do you call someone who drops a bomb from a plane and kills innocent people?
~ A brave American pilot
3. What do you call a weapon that can kill thousands of people?
~ A weapon of mass destruction.
What do you call a weapon that has killed 1.5 million, including more than 500,000 children?
~ Sanctions
4. What do you call an attack on the Pentagon, a command and control center in the United States?
~ A cowardly attack
What do you call the destruction of an Afghan village by U.S. bombs?
~ An attack on a Taliban command and control center
5. What do you call it when about 3,000 people were killed in the September 11th attack?
~ An atrocity
What do you call it when about 5 million people were killed in the Vietnam war?
~ A mistake
6. What do you call someone who stands up in front of a crowd and tells stories?
~ An entertainer
What do you call someone who stands up in front of a crowd at the Pentagon and tells stories?
~ Donald Rumsfeld
“the foolishly spendthrift”
That would be me. At least I also get to read Frank Rich. The really insulting part is you still have to put up with the ads.
Posse comitatus…what a laugh. You’al are right…there is no OTHER political party in this time because the democrats keep calling for things (like the Patriot Act and Homeland Security post 9-11, and the Feds to take over first-responder duties and Invade and occupy our states) and when delivered, scream like a fool that that is not what they meant. I also find insulting the democrats saying that the Arab world does not deserve democracy and are not “fit” for it. Like they did about slavery during the civil war and the civil rights era. Soros and Moore are not alternative…they are not moonbats (too substantial) they are moonbeams.
John,
You are right, the fascist term isn’t a good fit. I’ll ignore the President and stick to the “radical islam” designation I have been using so far. I am sure it is not perfect either. Just like for pornography we may lack a good definition for “radical Islam” but we can tell when we see that a subway explodes, “alla hu akbar” is uttered, and a mosque is involved…
David
Christopher Hitchens is generally credited as the original source for the term “Islamofascism”. I’d be inclined to think that this was merely further evidence of too many years’ hard drinking having poked holes in a heretofore fine mind, but the conclusion that ‘radical islam’ is the same as ‘totalitarianism’ shows up not only with neocons but with liberal hawks, such as Paul Berman and our pal Friedman.
David,
My terminological recommendation:
In other corners of the commentariat, I’ve come across the term “jihadists”. It’s meant to distinguish between “radical islamists” who support a (more or less, depending on the thinkers involved) radical form of Islamic governance, and the minority of that group who think that violence (including “justified” terrorism) is the only or best way to achieve it.
That term’s not a perfect fit either (viz arguments about what constitutes “jihad” and what’s permissible) but it’s more precise than “radical islam”. Hearing a radical islamist speak doesn’t mean that you’re about to hear explosions; hearing a jihadist speak would tend to mean that the bombs have already gone off.
pill prosolution review