Bullying Works

As historians look back on the Bush Mess, one of the great lessons will be that bullying works. Using lies, smears and misinformation, the Bush administration demonstrated that bullying is an extremely effective method of manipulating the political process and public opinion.

For example, when the Bush crew used the anguish and trauma of 9/11 to gain support for a nation-building scheme in Iraq, members of the media and Congress who questioned the policy were quickly accused of being unpatriotic, which shut many of them up. It was classic school-yard bullying.

When a seasoned diplomat exposed as fraudulent claims by the Bush administration that Iraq had been trying to buy Uranium from Niger, the Bush crew smeared his reputation and in the process exposed his wife as a CIA operative. Again, classic bullying.

When elections neared, the Bush crew pushed U. S. Attorneys across the nation to pursue voter-fraud cases against Democrats despite a lack of evidence, threatening the attorneys with termination for non-compliance. First rate bullying.

Further examples are legion. On virtually every issue, in virtually every instance, when faced with hard questions, the Bush administration went on the offensive using distorted accusations, character assassination, misinformation and personal innuendo rather than address the substance of the policy or decision being questioned.

If you attack the question or the critic, you’ll never have to give a straight answer!

Even today, their bullying tactics infect the national discourse. For example, when Congress recently voted to authorize funds for the continuing occupation of Iraq, the final compromise bill excluded a timeline for withdrawal. Pundits asked whether the bill would hurt Democrats, since, as CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry put it, the “left wing of the Democratic party” was against the war.

His comment, however, was a reflection of the lies and distortions the Bush crew and their minions have successfully bullied our media into accepting.

The “left wing of the Democratic party” is a smear phrase intended to trivialize and marginalize an issue or critic. Yet mainstream journalists use it ad nauseam because it creates a sense of conflict, and conflict generates ratings, even when the assertion is wildly inaccurate. In this instance, a large majority of Americans from both sides of the political spectrum want our troops withdrawn from Iraq immediately, not just “left wing” Democrats.

Here’s a note I wrote to CNN's Wolf Blitzer (Late Edition, 5-27-07) in response to Ed Henry’s remark:

Dear Mr. Blitzer,

Several times on today's show, your guests characterized the "left wing" of the Democratic party as being against the war in Iraq.

That characterization is stale, inflammatory and entirely false. The middle of the nation, both left and right, is against the war, and polls show that a large majority of our fellow citizens want our troops withdrawn beginning immediately. You, yourself, have mentioned polls which reflect this undisputed fact.

It would be accurate to say that a majority of Americans are against the war and want us out, spanning both Democrats and Republicans, left and right.

Until journalists stop using divisive, infotainment language like "left wing of the Democratic party" and use, instead, the FACTS, our nation will not get news, but rather a distorted editorial. Shame on your guests for skewing the national mood and keeping the dialog bound by distinctions that have become irrelevant to the issue. CNN should be better than that.

Bullying, by its nature, is divisive and polarizing. It creates dialog based on insinuation and stereotype, rather than on substance and logic.

Unless we reduce the infection bullying has produced, our political landscape will continue to be littered with distortions and divisions while the real issues remain on the sidelines, tragically unaddressed.

- JT Compton

V

Fundamentally Crazy

This week offered several horrifying reminders of how our nation has been infected by the mental cancer of fundamentalism.

The recent death of Reverend Jerry Falwell produced scores of obituaries and televised summaries of his career, including clips of his infamous, bigoted rants against a wide variety of people he judged to be of lesser spiritual worth.

But it also demonstrated that his views were not a thing of the past, but an ongoing phenomenon in places like Liberty University, the religion-based institution he founded and whose graduates now serve by the dozens in places like the White House and the Justice Department.

His acolytes and followers filled the airwaves yesterday confessing that they, like Falwell, were convinced that the “second coming” of Jesus would happen soon, that the "end days" were finally approaching.

Despite the presence of highly advanced, science-based technology in virtually every facet of life, it's astonishing that many evangelicals and members of other religious brands continue to ridicule science while embracing the medieval superstitions of books written thousands of years ago, claiming that those books were authored not by men but by the creator of the universe.

Their religion is more than a way to truth or enlightenment or peace.

It is The Way, while all others are wrong, bankrupt and of lesser worth.

This distinction separates fundamentalists from the sensible, sane and rational among us. Their certainty and conviction are actually the grave symptoms of people living in an intellectual black hole.

No matter how you slice it, believing that the Bible, Torah or Koran are literally true (rather than figuratively or metaphorically true) requires a grotesque suspension of judgment and reason in favor of powerful fantasy and fairy tales.

Take the “second coming” myth. It predicts, among other things, that Satan, in the form of a dragon, will be cast into a bottomless pit by an angel.

How is this tale any different than the Odyssey, which uses historical fact—the Trojan war—as a starting point for a fable that includes a Cyclops and Sirens? Other than words on a page, we have absolutely no evidence to suggest that anybody walked on water or that any virgin gave birth to a child. Dragons and Miracles, like Sirens, are the fantastical imaginings of early writers hoping to imbue history with magic powerful enough to influence their intended readership.

Likewise, today’s fundamentalists want to frighten and control their communities using crazy stories like the End Days. Or by claiming, as several Republican presidential hopefuls have, that a fetus or embryo is actually a wide-eyed, innocent child. Indeed, Governor Mike Huckabee claimed in last night’s GOP debate that a fetus was a “person”.

But a fetus is most certainly not a person. Just look in the Dictionary. Among other things, a person has a moral sense, as well as an awareness and comprehension of the world around it. Thus a fetus might be a potential person, but it is clearly not an actual person.

Ultimately, fundamentalists care little about facts. They want to sprinkle magic fairy dust on anything they deem sacred or important. Then need to claim divine license in order to give their superstitions weight while forcing the world to conform to the lunacy of their sacred texts.

For example, even though a vast, overwhelming majority of scientists believe that life on Earth has been developing for millions of years, fundamentalists argue that God created the world six thousand years ago. Why? Because the Bible says so. (Or at least some believe it implies so.)

Three of the Republican presidential candidates don’t even believe in evolution. They’ve chosen instead to elevate superstition above science and reason.

I don’t know how many Americans qualify as fundamentalists. But I’m sure the number is large. And every time their particular religious leader decides to alter an interpretation of holy scripture, they seem distressingly happy to go along with it.

How long until one of those leaders decides that the Constitution is immoral? How long before one of those leaders decides Democracy is against God? How long until one of those leaders decides that citizens who sin should be stoned to death?

As long as a person is infected with the cancer of fundamentalism, anything is possible. And as Muslim fundamentalists have demonstrated, that means anything.

- JT Compton

v

Shifting The Failure

Suddenly, benchmarks are making a lot of sense.

Yes, President Bush has seen the light again, and it is telling him to accept benchmarks. Forget that the Democrats and the American public have been screaming for tangible benchmarks in Iraq for years. The grey matter inside the President’s head finally wrapped itself around the necessity of creating solid criteria for success or failure in our effort to police the civil war in Iraq.

Forget also that eleven Republican congress members came to the President this week and told him that their constituents are so sick and tired of the mismanagement of the occupation that they are willing to throw in the towel and call our soldiers home. The President's new willingness to consider benchmarks is unrelated, nor does it have anything to do with his ever-worsening approval rating, now lower than any President in the last 30 years. (In one of the eleven’s home district, Bush’s approval rating is a mere five percent!)

No, the President's decision to consider benchmarks is part of a larger plan to make small, incremental concessions to Democratic lawmakers while forestalling the inevitable withdrawal from Iraq. If the President can just hang on and keep our troops from coming home, he can pass his historic catastrophe to the next administraion—almost certainly run by a Democrat—and blame them for “losing the war” when they bring the troops home.

Despite the grotesque toll in lives and treasure, it’s fatally important to Bush and his dishonest, scheming advisors Karl Rove and Dick Cheney that they not take the blame for losing a war that, in reality, was never winnable in the first place. The main thing that gives away their plan to shift the blame to the next President involves language. They are desperately trying to keep their operatives talking about the Iraq mess in conventional terms.

In other words, they are trying to maintain the fiction that Iraq is a “war” that we can still “win” or at least achieve something close to “victory”. But alas, this sham stopped working months ago. Americans have come to understand that there is no possibility of conventional victory in Iraq. It is quite literally impossible to “kill all the terrorists,” and it is equally impossible to force two tribes to set aside centuries of hatred fueled by fundamentalist dogma to live together in peace.

Supporting our troops should mean getting our remaining soldiers home safely. Winning should mean putting an end to the massive, almost incomprehensible cost of this bungled occupation. Victory should mean putting an end to the biggest terrorist recruiting tool of a lifetime.

And the public understands this. Only now—years too late—does the President seem to be seeing a glimmer of the light of reason when it comes to benchmarks. But not because he wants to put an end to his horrific blunder. Because he wants to play politics until he can pass the buck to someone else.

- JT Compton

v

Ten White Men

The Republicans held their first debate Thursday in California, moderated by Chris Matthews of MSNBC. The ten candidates found themselves crammed on a stage, and it became quickly clear that they were each going to grab as much air time as possible to recite their rehearsed campaign pitches.

More significantly, the candidates did everything they could to look like Real Conservatives. Again and again, they defined themselves by the worn, calcified clichés Americans have grown tired of, mouthing the same slogans made monotonous by the Bush spin machine.

While the Democratic candidates looked like tomorrow, the Republicans looked like yesterday. While the Democrats felt like a breath of fresh air, the Republicans felt like more of the same. While the Democrats appeared confident and passionate, the Republicans seemed frightened and defensive.

Americans need forward thinking leaders, not moralizing preachers. Until the GOP and its candidates stop telling Americans how to live their lives and passing judgment, the voting public will refuse to send ideologues to the White House just because they claim to be holier than thou. If recent history is any gauge, the more stridently candidates claim to be virtuous, the more likely they are to be dangerously incompetent and wrong on the issues that matter.

Sadly, the Republican candidates spent most of their debate trying to out-holy each other while doing virtually nothing to reassure Americans that they are anything but stay the course.

The same, disastrous course we’ve suffered for six years.

If that’s their best, the GOP is in real trouble next election cycle. Which is great news for America.

- JT Compton

.