Without a Doubt

October 16, 2004 2:40 PM

Withoug a Doubt(NYT, reg. req'd). My overwhelming reaction to this lengthy but startling Ron Suskind piece was just a tremendous sadness. A sadness that the greatest nation in the history of the world could be governed on the basis of faith rather than fact. How can dismissing the "reality-based" and relying instead on instinct result in anything but disaster?
posted by kgasmart (131 comments total)

I was just on the verge of posting this, although I was going to make more of the George W. Bush as Joliet Jake angle. Plus, he forgot Switzerland!

Seriously, though - a terrifying article.
posted by GriffX at 2:56 PM on October 16, 2004

Okay, so Sweden does have an army. But do they have wood?
posted by homunculus at 2:59 PM on October 16, 2004

See, he can admit when he's wrong: ''You were right,'' he said, with bonhomie. ''Sweden does have an army.''
posted by psmealey at 3:00 PM on October 16, 2004

Paul Craig Roberts on a similar topic.
posted by billsaysthis at 3:00 PM on October 16, 2004

Er, rhat would be "Without" a doubt...
posted by kgasmart at 3:07 PM on October 16, 2004

Those of us in the "reality-based" world have got to get rid of him.

and check this out--the Pope apparently believes Bush is the antiChrist
posted by amberglow at 3:19 PM on October 16, 2004

My money was on Kerry being the Anti-Christ, but if the Holy Father says, well... it must be so.
posted by psmealey at 3:33 PM on October 16, 2004

A sadness that the greatest nation in the history of the world could be governed on the basis of faith rather than fact.

Surely he isn't writing about France?
posted by pixelgeek at 3:33 PM on October 16, 2004

There's only one hope: Europe must unite with the Middle East to confront this enemy of the world.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:40 PM on October 16, 2004

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Jesus.
posted by Tlogmer at 3:50 PM on October 16, 2004

this sums it up for me:

"you know what they [bush supporters] like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it's good for us. Because you know what those folks don't like? They don't like you!'' In this instance, the final ''you,'' of course, meant the entire reality-based community."

something similar has been said by right-leaning people and self-described moderates on nearly every discussion board i frequent. hell, it's been said by more than a few people who oppose bush, including myself.

and, i'm sorry, but i find it absolutely frightening.


posted by lord_wolf at 4:00 PM on October 16, 2004

You guys are *so* screwed.
posted by The God Complex at 4:13 PM on October 16, 2004

The passage Tlogmer cites reminds me of Philip K. Dick's "Faith In Our Fathers."
posted by inksyndicate at 4:17 PM on October 16, 2004

"open dialogue, based on facts, is not seen as something of inherent value. It may, in fact, create doubt, which undercuts faith."

I am reminded of many, many pro-Bush weblogs that delete posts and refuse to consider anything of substance that veers their suicide course.

I am also reminded of A Canticle for Leibowitz.
posted by four panels at 4:18 PM on October 16, 2004

There's a brilliant response to this in Daily Kos's comments:
I propose a simple test....

I think that it is disrespectful for me to dismiss the notion that George Bush was not chosen by God to smite God's enemies with his flaming sword.

I acknowledge the omnipotence of the God of Abraham and Isaac.  This God is clearly an all powerful God and his plan will not be hindered by our puny human elections.

So my suggestion to all of the righteous followers of God and his chosen one, George W. Bush....on election day, STAY HOME!

Let us marvel at the power and glory of God as he reaffirms, against the pitiful machinations of democracy, the irreproachable saintliness of the holy warrior, George W. Bush.
posted by amberglow at 4:22 PM on October 16, 2004

...the greatest nation in the history of the world...

Bollocks.
posted by i_cola at 4:29 PM on October 16, 2004

I loved the piece -- won't cost Bush a single vote, will make the left that much more despondent at Bush's re-election. Probably not despondent to give up trying to raise my taxes, but there's always hoping...
posted by MattD at 4:38 PM on October 16, 2004

He said that there will be an opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice shortly after his inauguration, and perhaps three more high-court vacancies during his second term.

''Won't that be amazing?'' said Peter Stent, a rancher and conservationist who attended the luncheon. ''Can you imagine? Four appointments!''

{{{{shudder}}}} Now I'll be up all night!
posted by airgirl at 4:47 PM on October 16, 2004

Probably not despondent to give up trying to raise my taxes, but there's always hoping...

Because that's the bottom line: taxes.

You guys are *sooooooooo* screwed.
posted by The God Complex at 4:54 PM on October 16, 2004

Why a true conservationist would be happy about that I can't comprehend.

The passage Tlogmer cites reminds me of the end of 1984.
posted by kenko at 4:57 PM on October 16, 2004

posted by quonsar at 5:09 PM on October 16, 2004

I loved the piece -- won't cost Bush a single vote, will make the left that much more despondent at Bush's re-election. Probably not despondent to give up trying to raise my taxes, but there's always hoping...

right. because keeping your taxes low is the surest path to the amelioration of suffering on the planet. an excellent demonstration of the poles of today's polarization.

i tend to agree that we're on the edge of a massive confrontation between good and evil. i also believe many are confused as to which is which any longer.
posted by quonsar at 5:19 PM on October 16, 2004

A group of Democratic and Republican members of Congress were called in to discuss Iraq sometime before the October 2002 vote authorizing Bush to move forward. A Republican senator recently told Time Magazine that the president walked in and said: ''Look, I want your vote. I'm not going to debate it with you.'' When one of the senators began to ask a question, Bush snapped, ''Look, I'm not going to debate it with you.''

Arslan.
posted by rushmc at 5:20 PM on October 16, 2004

He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. .

There's somthing to fighting fire with fire, the problem is how much collatoral damage is done.
posted by stbalbach at 5:29 PM on October 16, 2004

Probably not despondent to give up trying to raise my taxes, but there's always hoping...

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
posted by Space Coyote at 5:31 PM on October 16, 2004

because keeping your taxes low is the surest path to the amelioration of suffering on the planet

Don't you understand, quonsar? These folks are just inches away from becoming fabulous millionaires like you see on TV.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:48 PM on October 16, 2004

is that the ownership society stuff? they'll get to be fabulous millionaires even while they're paying all their own healthcare and social security, and with higher local taxes for schools and police and fire and homeland security and everything?

cool! they're so lucky!!!
posted by amberglow at 5:53 PM on October 16, 2004

My taxes aren't low, they're sky high. I'd like to see them cut, but that's not in the cards.

Taking even more of the money that I risked, studied, and sweated to be in a position to make, and get up at 5 a.m. every day to try to make now, is what I just can't stand, particularly when it is guys with tens of millions of dollars or more, like Kerry and Edwards and their Hollywood and Upper West Side backers, who are trying to put their hands in my pocket.
posted by MattD at 6:09 PM on October 16, 2004

You guys are *sooooooooo* screwed.

Not just them guys, The God Complex: us too, I fear. You know, the elephant and the mouse.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 6:11 PM on October 16, 2004

Oh this is going to be fun. Someone making popcorn?
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:17 PM on October 16, 2004

George Bush done a poo
posted by ZippityBuddha at 6:20 PM on October 16, 2004

Kerry and Edwards and their Hollywood and Upper West Side backers, who are trying to put their hands in my pocket.

Very subtle. Nice. Dick.
posted by majcher at 6:32 PM on October 16, 2004

MattD, average wages are down more than the amount bush has cut of most people's taxes. So the question then becomes, can you add?
posted by Space Coyote at 6:34 PM on October 16, 2004

So MattD, are you making more than 373k a year?
posted by limitedpie at 6:35 PM on October 16, 2004

...when it is guys with tens of millions of dollars or more, like Bush and Cheney and their Texan and Wall Street (and Halliburton and Kellogg Root Brown and Sinclair and Fox) backers, who are trying to put their hands in my pocket.
posted by amberglow at 7:02 PM on October 16, 2004

How the Christian right's comeback has been fueled by Administration money.
posted by homunculus at 7:03 PM on October 16, 2004

MattD, what in the hell are you talking about?

Nearly 1,100 kids are dead in Iraq and you're worried about your tax bill being too high?
posted by kgasmart at 7:06 PM on October 16, 2004

Iraq was, and is, a good and beneficial fight; an object lesson of American resolve in the face of degenerates and savages wherever they can be found.

Good wars cost lives, and not only of the enemies. That doesn't make the war any less necessary. The opinions of pansies and fellow travelers of Islamofascists are of no account to me.

At such time as the cost demand, I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes in support of freedom, but I sure as hell don't want to be singled out for punitive taxation, as Kerry proposes to do so, because he, having married into wealth, has no idea of the sweat required to build up a decently remunerative business or career.
posted by MattD at 7:16 PM on October 16, 2004

thanks, homunculus.
I was almost going to get a couple of hours of sleep tonight, what, with only 50 pages of printouts. I'll add that to the pile, and shove that notion right out.

MattD: Have you checked how much of that is actually Federal? Mine are too, but NYC is responsible for most of it. And what country can you find with lower taxes? Sometimes people here act like self-centered babies. Speaking of which, you have any? You better make enough money for them, too, since Bush has been raising taxes on them, effectively. The louder we bitch, we're just raising the bar for them to bitch and whine louder. Not without justification, either, in my opinion.
posted by Busithoth at 7:21 PM on October 16, 2004

Unlike, say, Bush?
posted by trondant at 7:21 PM on October 16, 2004

all the f'n bush and nader voters (john kerry has his own share as well..) have the blood of the 10,000 + innocent civilians killed in iraq on their hands ... how are you going to be able to cleanse yourselves of the mess made by four more years of this clown?
posted by specialk420 at 7:22 PM on October 16, 2004

Good wars cost lives, and not only of the enemies. That doesn't make the war any less necessary. The opinions of pansies and fellow travelers of Islamofascists are of no account to me.

So, MattD, when are you going to sign up to sacrifice your life for this necessary war?
posted by somethingotherthan at 7:22 PM on October 16, 2004

Iraq was, and is, a good and beneficial fight; an object lesson of American resolve in the face of degenerates and savages wherever they can be found.

MattD: you must be investing in the weapons industry (not dumb these days).
To say this war was necessary would be to allow justification of anything after the fact.

Bush was born into money, Kerry married into it. (twice, even). Bush's tax structure plans on benefiting investment, while taxing wages more and more. That seem wise to you?
posted by Busithoth at 7:27 PM on October 16, 2004

Oh, speaking of taxes, Bush has raised yours, Matt, and all of ours.

The opinions of pansies and fellow travelers of Islamofascists are of no account to me.
Then why are you here?
posted by amberglow at 7:30 PM on October 16, 2004

Good wars cost lives, and not only of the enemies. That doesn't make the war any less necessary.

Amazing.

When the draft is reinstated, let me be the first to suggest that those willing to send others to their deaths in "good" wars be the first to be conscripted.
posted by kgasmart at 7:33 PM on October 16, 2004

I didn't vote for Bush, and I won't. Even though I didn't, as an American citizen, I have the blood of innocent civilans killed in Iraq on my hands. We all do.

Here's what I'm doing about it.
posted by Caviar at 7:34 PM on October 16, 2004

particularly when it is guys with tens of millions of dollars or more, like Kerry and Edwards and their Hollywood and Upper West Side backers

Have you had your fingers in your ears for the past, oh, year?

The opinions of pansies and fellow travelers of Islamofascists are of no account to me.

You must have a very large penis!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:38 PM on October 16, 2004

an object lesson of American resolve in the face of degenerates and savages wherever they can be found.

So you'll be voting against Bush and the Christian Right forces backing him?
posted by pixelgeek at 7:43 PM on October 16, 2004

i couldn't have said it better Civil_Disobedient .
posted by Stynxno at 7:44 PM on October 16, 2004

The opinions of pansies and fellow travelers of Islamofascists are of no account to me.

I think we can all agree that Saddam was bad. We should also agree that Iraq has turned into an incredible clusterfuck -- not because it was the wrong war (or, necessarily, the right one), but because of incompetent management. What was once the only relatively secular muslim state in the middle east (and this is a clash of civilizations, right?) is now a breeding ground for wahabiist terrorism.

I sure as hell don't want to be singled out for punitive taxation, as Kerry proposes to do so, because he, having married into wealth, has no idea of the sweat required to build up a decently remunerative business or career.

Let me tell you about sweat. I have a friend in dental school. She works at Meijers to pay for class. Every time she goes to work, it takes her two hours on the shitty bus system in our yuppie town (it's 15 minutes by car). She has a four-hour-a-day commute, and she lives in a small town, not Tokyo. She puts off going to the doctor for her anemia because -- apart from the costs she can't really afford -- it, too, takes her four hours, round-trip, and she just doesn't have the time.

If you make 400K a year and are complaining about taxes (which pay for things like health care, and busses), your priorities are messed up. If you're voting on this issue, considering what else is at stake, you're so out of touch as to be delusional.
posted by Tlogmer at 7:48 PM on October 16, 2004

Sorry about the double post, but one point is worth elaborating on: regardless of who is orchestrating the resistance in Iraq (most people think it's mostly local, but you might disagree), the fact that religious extremists are involved changes iraqi society. Do you know why Hamas is so popular in chaotic regions? Because they care for widows and orphans. Do you know why Hamas is so dangerous in those regions? Because they run schools that teach children to hate.
posted by Tlogmer at 7:54 PM on October 16, 2004

interesting companion piece on Rove at Washington Post (about him trying to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat): Now, a little more than two weeks before the election, the Bush-Cheney campaign would be happy to eke out the barest, skin-of-the-teeth GOP majority, and aims to cobble it together by turning out every last evangelical Christian, gun owner, rancher and home schooler -- reliable Republicans all. It looks like the opposite of Rove's original dream.

At this point, Bush would have to defy history to win reelection, since polls show the incumbent in a dead-even race and that a majority of voters believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. Facing those bleak facts, well-known Republicans are quietly wondering whether Rove's luck has finally run out.
posted by amberglow at 7:58 PM on October 16, 2004

You guys are *so* screwed.

TGC: It's a small world after all.

MattD: Good troll, just keep refusing to directly answer anyone.
posted by billsaysthis at 8:07 PM on October 16, 2004

And something else to make everyone (except MattD) feel better: Bogus polls mask landslide in the making
posted by amberglow at 8:07 PM on October 16, 2004

MattD: Good troll, just keep refusing to directly answer anyone.

Isn't that kind of the point of this whole post in the first place?
posted by briank at 8:13 PM on October 16, 2004

The opinions of pansies and fellow travelers of Islamofascists are of no account to me.

"Islamofascist" is one of those code words that sound great coming out of the mouths of talk radio droids like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, but don't actually mean anything at all, because Islamic groups currently in play in Iraq and in the Middle East are not fascist, but rather theocratic. Even Saddam's regime wasn't truly fascist, although it had fascistic elements. You may as well call Muslims "cruncheriffic," because "Islamofascist" has the same made-up marketing buzzword pedigree as any ad campaign you've ever heard of.
posted by RylandDotNet at 8:25 PM on October 16, 2004

Sorry that I can't keep a personal colloquy with each of my many fans :)

To respond to one general theme, I'm certainly not trying to persuade anyone here of the merits of Iraq or Bush -- should have premised any statement along that lines with "I believe." But, for that, I do think it's important that intellectual fora (the NY Times Sunday Magazine, and, to a different extent, MeFi) not become a leftist echo chamber. Somebody's got to keep you all honest, and since I'm not particularly interested in writing a letter to the NY Times magazine...

To respond to another: I trust the military to communicate its recruiting needs, and to judge by the ads I've seen, they're not in need of folks with my skillset and age. Should the government come to disagree with on this subject to the point of drafting me, I'd go with a smile on my face.

Yet another, I can say without hesitation or embarassment that I vote principally on my family's self-interests, as I see it. But that's common -- the only people who don't do that are a certain segment of the pampered liberal elite. And, really, it's just a different self-interest (self-righteousness) that they're prosecuting, but, hey, it's their vote, more power to 'em -- but I sure don't have to join that silly club.

Finally, I can top the story about the sad dental student. When I was in school I couldn't afford a car, and there was NO convenient bus route from my apartment to the classroom building. So I walked, every day, through the entire Chicago winter, more than one mile each way, for THREE YEARS.
posted by MattD at 8:48 PM on October 16, 2004

amberglow, I really hope--have faith, even (heh)--that the Kerry landslide prediction comes true.
posted by tomharpel at 8:57 PM on October 16, 2004

There's only one hope: Europe must unite with the Middle East to confront this enemy of the world.

Word.

You may as well call Muslims "cruncheriffic," because "Islamofascist" has the same made-up marketing buzzword pedigree as any ad campaign you've ever heard of.

My suggestions.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:10 PM on October 16, 2004

When I was in school I couldn't afford a car, and there was NO convenient bus route from my apartment to the classroom building. So I walked, every day, through the entire Chicago winter, more than one mile each way, for THREE YEARS.

This is a joke, right? You're not seriously putting this anecdote forward as evidence of hardship?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:13 PM on October 16, 2004

Reading that article reminded me so much of the portrait of Ayn Rand's Ellsworth Toohey character in "The Fountainhead." The only difference being that Toohey was fully aware of the havoc that his philosophy would bring upon the world. Bush, in a deluded stupor, believes he is here to save us all.

I for one wish to extend a warm welcome to our theocratic overlords. PRAISE JE-SUS!
posted by tgrundke at 9:13 PM on October 16, 2004

MattD, to be less snippy, I'll ask a direct question: Is it better to have your taxes go down, or instead to have the economy improve enough such that people's incomes, and therefore the revenues of business owners, go up by a similar amount, as happened under clinton? (the rich get richer and the poor get richer, I can't think of a better scenario than that, really.)
posted by Space Coyote at 9:14 PM on October 16, 2004

I can say without hesitation or embarassment that I vote principally on my family's self-interests, as I see it.

Look harder.
posted by rushmc at 9:21 PM on October 16, 2004

I am a militant atheist, and hold nearly every aspect of religion in faith on absolute and utter comtempt.

But President Bush's faith -- such as it is -- doesn't really bother me too much, because he is constrained from acting on the most severe of such beliefs by rule of law, the Constitution, and political reality. His "secular" viewpoints, on the other hand, I have no problem with.
posted by davidmsc at 9:22 PM on October 16, 2004

So I walked, every day, through the entire Chicago winter, more than one mile each way, for THREE YEARS.

and now, someone's going to pay, by god!
posted by quonsar at 9:29 PM on October 16, 2004

I can say without hesitation or embarrassment that I vote principally on my family's self-interests, as I see it.

If we assume for a moment that the most myopic and short term interpretation of "self-interest" holds, then I can understand: (1) the wealthiest 1% of Americans, (2) Some Oil or Pharmaceutical employees or (3) Extremely religious people (who would like to see the apparatus of democracy used to vote in a functional theocracy) all voting for Bush. I can even understand certain one-issue voters, those for example who are apeshit in love with guns and who find their very identity wrapped up in the rise and fall of the minutia of NRA initiatives. But I must admit to being very perplexed by the half a dozen people or so that I know who profess to "voting principally on [their] family's self-interest" and who support Bush. These people (that I know) generally make rather (above)ordinary (but not extraordinary, ie. not saving enough to really matter from the tax cuts, but richer than most of the world) incomes, have rather secular beliefs and spend their time worrying about things like job security, having enough time with the kids, and where to go for vacation. So MattD, maybe you can help me understand: If you could leave behind the rhetoric for a minute, how precisely does Bush advance your family's self-interest? If your Dad is the CEO of an Oil Company, no need to reply, I get it. On preview: Many thoughtful Republicans-- ones who are thinking critically about "self-interest"-- are abandoning Bush, hmmmm.
posted by limitedpie at 9:32 PM on October 16, 2004

Uphill both ways?
posted by trondant at 9:32 PM on October 16, 2004

When I was in school I couldn't afford a car, and there was NO convenient bus route from my apartment to the classroom building. So I walked, every day, through the entire Chicago winter, more than one mile each way, for THREE YEARS.

okay...


and it was uphill both ways right?

on preview: damn you trondant!
posted by Stynxno at 9:36 PM on October 16, 2004

metafilter: uphill both ways.
posted by quonsar at 9:38 PM on October 16, 2004

no--metafilter: pansies and fellow travelers of Islamofascists
posted by amberglow at 9:43 PM on October 16, 2004

"A sadness that the greatest nation in the history of the world could be governed on the basis of faith rather than fact.

Surely he isn't writing about France?"

Funniest.Comment.EVAR.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:57 PM on October 16, 2004

I can top the story about the sad dental student

Good for you, but that's not the point: small investments in specific services make it much easier for people on the lower rungs of society to achieve.

And I call bullshit on the "only members of the pampered liberal elite vote based on something other than self-interest" line, for (1) inaccuracy (Denmark gives 10% of its government budget to foreign aid; if they're pampered, most americans are) and (2) being needlessly inflammatory. Keeping mefi honest would involve more thought and less thowing stones in the pool to watch the ripples.
posted by Tlogmer at 10:28 PM on October 16, 2004

This is a very, very good article for at least this reason: it stops short of the kind of shrill shrieking that Moore et all have used to undercut the listenability of the pro-reality movement.

I fault Suskind only for not connecting the dots between the orchestrated charade of Bush's evangelical fervor and the very real, secular agenda of the fanatics who want to use this nation's born-agains as a way to hammer through their neoconservative ideas, such as privatizing Social Security, ending reproductive choice, hampering the ability of consumers to sue corporations, dismantling public schools, and so on. Suskind mentions these agenda items about 4/5ths of the way down the article, but they should be portrayed as central to the anti-reality farce, not merely an element of it.

Again, chilling and outstanding article. I was particularly moved by Suskind's explanations of how the "true believers" view us in the reality-based world. *shiver*
posted by squirrel at 10:46 PM on October 16, 2004

Madsen contends that "Bush is a dangerous right-wing ideologue who couples his political fanaticism with a neo-Christian blood cult."

See... Madsen managed to sum it up in one line.
posted by squirrel at 11:03 PM on October 16, 2004

Speaking of the Fearless Leader of the Theocratic States, The Bush Administration has decided that it will "stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, according to internal documents obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

...

The creationist book is not the only religious controversy at Grand Canyon National Park. One week prior to the approved sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, NPS Deputy Director Donald Murphy ordered that bronze Bible plaques bearing Psalm verses be returned and reinstalled at canyon overlooks. Superintendent Alston had removed the plaques on legal advice from Interior Department solicitors. Murphy also wrote a letter of apology to the plaques’ sponsors, the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary. PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility) has collected additional instances of what it calls the Bush Administration’s “Faith-Based Parks” agenda."
posted by dejah420 at 11:16 PM on October 16, 2004

When I was in school I couldn't afford a car, and there was NO convenient bus route from my apartment to the classroom building. So I walked, every day, through the entire Chicago winter, more than one mile each way, for THREE YEARS.

You got a degree in Asswipeology in only three years?! You must be a natural! scram, troll. Shame on those of you who took his first bait, which was obviously just bait. You're the "fans" he needs to keep derailing good threads like this one could have been.
posted by squirrel at 11:27 PM on October 16, 2004

A sadness that the greatest nation in the history of the world could be governed on the basis of faith rather than fact.

Um, hi. I'm history. Ever read me? Which empire, exactly, do you believe was run on fact and not on faith? I find it hilarious that people think the strong-arm tactics used in exerting American interest worldwide are something new. OMFG "secular" "empiricist" America believes it is the "greatest nation" in the world and has some sort of "manifest destiny" to direct the course of history?!?! Excuse me, but haven't we been saying this since before the Phillipines? As if GwB was something new and terrifying. Terrifying, maybe, but certainly not new. As if anything changes anything.

Priceless.
posted by ChasFile at 11:30 PM on October 16, 2004

To follow what ChasFile says,

"I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way … that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos and uplift them and civilize and Christianize them."

... President William McKinley, on starting a similarly poorly-conceived war in 1898 that led to bloody killing between the U.S. and the people we liberated
posted by inksyndicate at 12:01 AM on October 17, 2004

McKinley, of course, being one of Rove's idols.
posted by bashos_frog at 1:56 AM on October 17, 2004

So I walked, every day, through the entire Chicago winter, more than one mile each way, for THREE YEARS.

You think a mile is a long way to walk?
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:02 AM on October 17, 2004

Most of you probably know that Orcinus has been running a fascinating (but longish) article on the rise of American fascism in the guise of Bush and the present (hopefully temporary) right-wing ascendancy.

I found this the most startling part of Suskind's NYT Magazine piece (assuming, of course, his accuracy in recollection): The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

This situation reminds me of nerve gas which is made of two components, each harmless in itself, but deadly when they mix. Bush in himself can be found in thousands of small fundamentalist churches, leading Bible class and mumbling something in meetings. And Karl Roves exist in plenty without front men who clearly and strongly believe in themselves, able to do political calculation and touch the money men for a few hundred thou here and there. When they connect with "reality-based" politicians, the damage can be bad enough, as shown by careers of Texans Tom Delay or LBJ. In this case we don't know what we're into yet, and hopefully will not find out. I suspect it may be Nehemiah Scudder. Wet dreams of apocalypse are pretty much the other side's game, but this does feel a bit like deja vu.
posted by palancik at 4:52 AM on October 17, 2004

Maybe Rome deserved to fall.

I never really thought about it from the Visigoth's and Vandals point of view.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:43 AM on October 17, 2004

I just realized that more moderate Republicans will be thinking twice about Bush after reading this, if they haven't already decided to sit home, or vote for Kerry. I can't imagine anyone wanting to vote for someone who clearly doesn't listen to their concerns or wishes, and is proud of it.
posted by amberglow at 7:12 AM on October 17, 2004

"When I wer't lad, we lived in't cardboard box in t' central reservation of t' M1. We worked twen'three hours 'day down't pit an had to get up half'n hour fore we went t' bed. An when he got home father would beat us - an that's if we were lucky....."</python>
posted by normy at 7:32 AM on October 17, 2004

I can top the story about the sad dental student

Good for you, but that's not the point:

he so did not top the dental student! He had a twenty minute walk to class! How is that a hardship? Maybe in a bad winter it kind of sucked, but even so, if that's what you think is hardship... wow. I can't imagine I would even bother to take the bus (well, except now with the unlimited metrocard I might if I saw it) to walk 20 blocks.
posted by mdn at 7:45 AM on October 17, 2004

I walk a mile each way to and from the el stop that takes me to work. Before that I spent four years walking around the snowy wasteland that is Hyde Park i the winter. As recompense, I demand someone raise MattD's taxes.
posted by kenko at 7:55 AM on October 17, 2004

I just realized that more moderate Republicans will be thinking twice about Bush after reading this, if they haven't already decided to sit home, or vote for Kerry. I can't imagine anyone wanting to vote for someone who clearly doesn't listen to their concerns or wishes, and is proud of it.

Are you for real? I think the world does not work the way you think it does.
posted by rushmc at 8:01 AM on October 17, 2004

And, not wanting to seem arbitrarily snarky, rushmc went on to clarify himself thusly:
posted by squirrel at 8:34 AM on October 17, 2004

Bringing the debate back to Suskind's article, please, I note that the Wallis quotes seem to be from the Frontline piece back in April '04, "The Jesus Factor," which profiles Bush's evangelical conversion and the impact of religion on his presidency.
posted by gen at 8:52 AM on October 17, 2004

arbitrarily snarky is all rushmc does, regarding me, at least.
Here's something about what i said, one of a surprising number of Republicans speaking out, and planning to vote against, Bush--from Kentucky, no less.
posted by amberglow at 8:59 AM on October 17, 2004

So I walked, every day, through the entire Chicago winter, more than one mile each way, for THREE YEARS.

Be gentle on MattD. He obviously suffers multiple sclerosis. You try walking a mile using arm-crutches!
posted by five fresh fish at 9:03 AM on October 17, 2004

I think you all need to look at the front of the article again. "Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that 'if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.' "

It's a newspaper. The juice is right at the beginning. Have heart, because a big Bush win could be the best thing for a more moderate and more secular America.

If Kerry loses (I think he will) it will be because of Bush bash backlash. Clinton never bashed Bush I. In their last debate he thanked him for his many years of distinguished service for the country; Clinton modestly claimed his opinion that we should do things a little differently for the next four years. Demonizing George Bush is NOT a useful political stance.
posted by bukvich at 9:25 AM on October 17, 2004

But one mustn't forget about bush bash backlash backlash.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:39 AM on October 17, 2004

MattD -- there's a job for you in the military that would allow you to help out in this war you deem important.

I'm not really kidding anyone. Those most in favor of the war aren't generally the type to actually fight it.
posted by clevershark at 9:43 AM on October 17, 2004

Bush 41 didn't really deserve demonizing to the extent that this president does. He had a lot of policies that were harmful, but he could at least argue his side coherently, with facts and logic. His Iraq war had 1/10th the U.S. casualties of this one. Bush 41 also had a lot more press conferences to explain his side of things. The current president feels that he doesn't need to justify himself to anyone, least of all the American people, and that is the saddest thing in the article.
posted by bashos_frog at 10:26 AM on October 17, 2004

"And while you're studying that reality ... we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

And meanwhile, they will understand none of the realities they have created.

This is the problem with the post-modern attitude: They think ideas are reality. They think that a simulation of a rainstorm will get you wet. Yes, it's trivially, tautologically true that the 'actions of the Empire' will "create reality"; it does not follow that the reality created in any way resembled the reality imagined by those driving the action.

More succinctly: These guys are way too smart about really narrow, hyper-theoretical "truths", and way too stupid about empirical reality.
posted by lodurr at 10:35 AM on October 17, 2004

On supreme court appointments: Over the past 3+ years, I've often thought about Justice O'Connor's ill-advised comment on hearing the early projections for Gore: "Damn! I wanted to retire, too!"

It was well known -- more than rumored -- that O'Connor was tired, wanted to retire and spend her remaining days as a civilian. She was expected to do so at the earliest opportunity. But she hasn't done it. Why?

My theory is that it finally dawned on her what would happen if she did. At base, I think Sandra O'Connor is a conscientious jurist. Yes, she voted with the Devil and against precedent in Bush v. Gore; but I think that's a lapse. I think she values the ideal of objectivity.

And she knows that goal would be anathema to any Bush appointee.

I think she has deferred retirement in hope that someone might take the Presidency who would appoint a real judge, instead of an ideologue.
posted by lodurr at 10:45 AM on October 17, 2004

i take issue with the use of the term "demonizing". since when is stating the bald faced facts of a mans record "demonizing" him? if the fucker is demonized, he's the demon.
posted by quonsar at 10:49 AM on October 17, 2004

Demonizing George Bush is NOT a useful political stance.

Pretending not to see his various crimes out of some misguided sense of politeness is not a useful ethical one.
posted by rushmc at 10:51 AM on October 17, 2004

... as Kerry proposes to do so, because he, having married into wealth, has no idea of the sweat required to build up a decently remunerative business or career.

You know, that's absolute bullshit, and I'm f'ing tired of hearing it tossed around and not rebutted. You talk like the guy never worked -- yet he was by all accounts a very successful prosecutor. That takes a shitload of work. Maybe he didn't need the money he made that way (and oh, by the way, he could have made more money with less work in private practice), but he did work for it, and work hard.

By the way: I do hope you understand that GWB actually does have "no idea of the sweat required to build up a decently remunerative business or career", since he's never done either. Remember? He never made money as a businessman -- except for that hand-held sweetheart deal with the Rangers, which ended up costing the state of TX a ton of money.
posted by lodurr at 10:56 AM on October 17, 2004

... landslide ...

amberglow, I've been thinking the same thing for a couple of weeks, now: that the polling assumptions are so perversely skewed that the pollsters can't see what's happening, and Kerry will actually take the Presidency in an electoral landslide. It's a ray of hope.

As for a Bush victory being a good thing for the Democrats: I believe there's a simple way to make a Kerry win a good thing for the Democrats, too. If Kerry makes a concerted effort to open his ears to moderate Republicans, he can sew dissension within the Republican party. He doesn't have to give away the farm -- he just has to listen. He just has to treat them as though they matter to him. (Which they do.)
posted by lodurr at 11:06 AM on October 17, 2004

"Pretending not to see his various crimes out of some misguided sense of politeness is not a useful ethical one."

It is the only pragmatic option. Fifty percent of the people are going to vote for him. That is fifty percent of *us*. We have to live with these people.

Do you like to tease dogs with bones as well?
posted by bukvich at 11:56 AM on October 17, 2004

yup, lodurr -- the polling has been missing millions of young people (that whole Britney Spears/Baby Jessica generation) and new registrants, let alone the skewed weighting. Turnout will really be key--and there were more of us last time to begin with. I've heard that they're expecting a turnout comparable to 1960.
(and Kerry will totally consult with, and listen to, the other side--that's understood by moderates on both sides, i believe.)

JoanGeorge of Arc or a more normal person? The choice is clear.
posted by amberglow at 12:07 PM on October 17, 2004

MattD, I earn a buttload of money, and so does my husband, and we have no children and our parents are doing nicely on their retirement savings and investments.

However, I think of the taxes I pay that contribute, for example, to our armed forces, the maintenance of our nation's physical infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), our nation's public schools, and health care for expectant mothers as an investment in my future.

Because when I am old, I want to be able to use the money I worked so hard for to live in a comfortable home for Crones n' Codgers, staffed by competent people with reasonable cognitive skills and good physical health.

I don't want to be lying moaning in a hut somewhere being tended by some victim of hydrocephaly who was the only person who could be spared from the onerous harvest requirements of our new Communist Chinese overlords, who were insisting that the few able-bodied but illiterate citizens remaining grow bioengineered rice in a paddy flooded with water brimming over with PCBs and raw sewage.

OTOH, I would welcome a refund of the $1 or so of my taxes that have gone so far to no-bid contracts for Halliburton, because the box of Altoids that would buy me would do more good for the world than anything those plutocratic whoremasters are doing.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:35 PM on October 17, 2004

We have to live with these people.

You may be willing to make moral compromises to accommodate the ignorant, the careless, and the wicked, but not all of us are. Are you so quick to capitulate to criminals? to bigots? to terrorists? Just so you can "live with them" in relative peace?
posted by rushmc at 3:24 PM on October 17, 2004

We have to live with these people.

Maybe you do... personally I'm getting off this sinking ship and heading to Canada.

Unless... unless we could institute some kind of public method of showing who we voted for. Perhaps a colored patch of some kind, worn on the sleeve or chest?

Oh wait, I forgot, the Republicans already do this with their cars. Yay yellow ribbons.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:07 PM on October 17, 2004

The Threat

I never supported Bush and always hoped he would lose in 2004 since I thought his policies were misguided, but many people seemed to me at the time to have lost all sense of perspective about who the really threatening enemies were. Suskind's article along with other pieces of evidence of what one might call the creeping Putinization of American life (the Sinclair incident, the threatening letter to Rock The Vote, the specter of the top official in the House of Representatives making totally baseless charges of criminal conduct against a major financier of the political opposition [shades of Mikhail Khodorovsky], the increasing evidence that the 'terror alert' system is nothing more than a political prop, the 'torture memo' asserting that the president is above the law, the imposition of rigid discipline on the congress, the abuse of the conference committee procedure, the ability of the administration to lie to congress without penalty, the exclusion of non-supporters from Bush's public appearances, etc.) are beginning to make me think this assessment may have been misguided.

what one might call the creeping Putinization of American life...
posted by y2karl at 5:19 PM on October 17, 2004

... as Kerry proposes to do so, because he, having married into wealth, has no idea of the sweat required to build up a decently remunerative business or career. - MattD

In fact, Kerry started a cookie shop with a friend in Boston in 1979, and remained a partner until 1988. The shop is still flourishing. Which of Bush's businesses is still in operation? Besides his timber mill, of course...
posted by nicwolff at 6:06 PM on October 17, 2004

Yet another, I can say without hesitation or embarassment that I vote principally on my family's self-interests, as I see it.

That's the problem, MattD. You should be embarassed, and no doubt at some level, you are.

Yours is the ethos of the cancer cell.

Try voting and living on a principle other than the stupidity and banality of "more more more money" for a change. Your life and the world in general will become a better place.

And seriously. If you think the war in Iraq is so all fired grand, please put your guts where your mouth is and stop sending others in your place to fight your chickenhawk war. I'm sure the armed forces can train even you in the wonderful skillset it takes to hump a rifle and bleed along the side of an Iraqi road.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 6:40 PM on October 17, 2004

That's the problem, MattD. You should be embarassed

He should be embarrassed twice. Once for having the ethos of a cancer cell, and again for not realizing he isn't even getting the self-interest part right.

Fuck the tax cuts - I get almost nothing from that, even with a 6 figure salary. Give me back an economy where a skilled worker has some leverage over his salary and benefits. I'll take a $2000/yr raise taxed at 50% over a $1000 tax refund any day of the week. After all, I'm gonna wind up paying back every cent of the refund with copious interest over the next couple of years - in the form of other taxes, medical costs, education costs, etc.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:00 PM on October 17, 2004

Michael Berube: But overall, as a depiction of an alternate universe inhabited by the insane, it’s pretty interesting stuff from an outlet that doesn’t usually publish much in the genre.
posted by amberglow at 7:08 PM on October 17, 2004

You may be willing to make moral compromises to accommodate the ignorant, the careless, and the wicked

People who are voting for Bush aren't ignorant, careless, and wicked. They're wrong. If you want to convince people they're wrong, understand their arguments.

he so did not top the dental student!

Well, yeah, but that seemed like even more of a sidetrack.
posted by Tlogmer at 8:23 PM on October 17, 2004

This is about Dominion Theology



".....As he considered the prospect of his candidacy, Bush met frequently with evangelical leaders. In October 1999, he addressed the Council for National Policy, a "powerful but secretive" group that attracts the "who's who of the evangelical movement," including Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Senator Jesse Helms, Congressmen Tom DeLay, Oliver North, and Christian Reconstructionist, Rousas John Rushdoony.[25] The founder of the Council is none other than Tim LaHaye, the author of the best-selling Left Behind series of novels, which center around an evangelical interpretation of the Book of Revelation as played out in contemporary global politics.  In LaHaye's narrative, the Rapture has taken place, the Antichrist has taken control of the U.N., and the struggle between good against evil is being waged in the Middle East. This narrative, interestingly enough, also happened to fit well with the Neoconservative plans for the Middle East as the center of America's geopolitical struggle:



LaHaye…added a new foreign policy dimension to its agenda, specifically with regard to the Middle East. According to LaHaye, the armies of the Antichrist would soon have their final battle with Christ and 'witness the end of history' after a series of conflicts in the Middle East—- not unlike those taking place today. The belief that the events in the Middle East were part of God's plan, that Christ would return only after Israel truly controlled the Holy Land, put the Christian right on course for a low-profile liaison with a highly unlikely political ally—hard-line, pro-Israeli, neoconservative defense policy intellectuals.....As Kevin Philips observes, many of the Christian leaders with whom Bush has been associating are connected to a large and influential movement known as Christian Reconstructionism or Dominion Theology.....Dominion Theology is based on the belief that all human behavior is inherently religious and that Christian law should infuse every aspect of social life. The movement has been controversial for its strong political agenda, which calls for the dominance of the Church in political affairs and the creation of a single kingdom ruled by Christian leaders."



Dominion Theology



" I never thought I would live long enough to see the revival of the thoroughly discredited doctrine of postmillennialism. But it has occurred, and it has happened quickly.



The doctrine is sweeping through Christendom today, and strangely enough, it is appealing primarily to two segments at opposite ends of the spectrum — namely, the Charismatics and those with a heritage of Reformed theology.



The doctrine is being presented in new clothes. Although it appears under many different names — Restoration, Reconstruction, New Wave, Latter Rain, and Manifest Sons of God — the two most frequently used titles are Kingdom Now Theology and Dominion Theology."
posted by troutfishing at 9:04 PM on October 17, 2004

Trout, did you just make the same post in two threads?
posted by kenko at 9:54 PM on October 17, 2004

And the answer is yes, you did.
posted by kenko at 10:36 PM on October 17, 2004

In another intersection of religion and politics: Britain and US clash over stem cell debate.
posted by homunculus at 10:36 PM on October 17, 2004

We have to live with these people.

In 2000, about 51% of eligible voters turned out, and about 45% of them voted for Bush. That makes about 45 million Americans who supported him, which is more like a quarter than a half.

And, no, we don't have to live with these people. We have to deprogram them. Don't forget that Hitler was elected in a landslide. Dictators don't just fall from the sky; huge populations thrust them into power. Americans today are certainly no smarter than Germans were in the 1930s. These are scary times.
posted by squirrel at 1:14 AM on October 18, 2004

kenko - Oh no....I've been discovered!

I think, however, that some things bear repetition.
posted by troutfishing at 4:08 AM on October 18, 2004

People who are voting for Bush aren't ignorant, careless, and wicked. They're wrong.

I disagree. At some point, willfully ignoring a mountain of evidence demonstrates all three of the traits I listed.
posted by rushmc at 9:07 AM on October 18, 2004

trout, where is that first section from?
posted by mdn at 12:02 PM on October 18, 2004

Rushmc, my only advice is to get out of the echo chamber. Republicans do not read the same news articles you do.
posted by Tlogmer at 2:35 PM on October 18, 2004

mdn - Here's a link to a huge article on this.

I agree with Tlogmer - people are the same everywhere. They just receive different input.

My brother, for example, is tuned into the 700 Club 24/7, I think.
posted by troutfishing at 3:21 PM on October 18, 2004

related thing--a report on a documentary--"George W. Bush: Faith in the White House"
posted by amberglow at 8:28 PM on October 18, 2004

I'll take a $2000/yr raise taxed at 50% over a $1000 tax refund any day of the week. After all, I'm gonna wind up paying back every cent of the refund with copious interest over the next couple of years - in the form of other taxes, medical costs, education costs, etc.

La la la la! Not listening! La la la la! You hate our freedom!
posted by squirrel at 8:50 PM on October 18, 2004

Republicans do not read the same news articles you do.

Because they choose not to, which supports my point. But enough of the truth trickles through even those media channels to which they limit themselves that your implication that they are exposed to NONE of it is obviously false.
posted by rushmc at 8:46 AM on October 19, 2004

People trust news sources that share their views. That's why they read freerepublic, and why they read counterpunch (I'm not arguing that those 2 are equivalent, by the way; I suspect they aren't but haven't read enough of either to know.) It's why people who read freerepublic dismiss anything on counterpunch out of hand, and vice versa.

Maybe a tiny bit of each side trickles into the other, but it's not enough. Volume matters. The world is complex, and while everything you read influences your view of it, people naturally assign more weight to stories that fit the trends they see and dismiss stories that don't as aberrations. You don't see this freep story about clinton's supposed culpibility for 9/11 (one of many) linked here because nobody here thinks it's relevant. Freepers see it as part of a trend of liberals (yes, I know clinton is not a liberal) ignoring dangerous islamism.
posted by Tlogmer at 11:09 AM on October 19, 2004

the pampered liberal elite.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:46 PM on October 19, 2004

Ron Suskind, who exposed the ruthless internal operations of Team Bush, tells Salon that many Republicans, too, are frightened by the White House's "kill-or-be-killed desire to undermine public debate based on fact"
posted by homunculus at 8:12 PM on October 19, 2004

People trust news sources that share their views.

Yeah, people are stupid. What they should be looking for are news sources that report facts as neutrally as possible. If you want opinion, read an editorial or talk to your friends, don't seek it from Dan Rather or Brit Hume.
posted by rushmc at 8:44 PM on October 19, 2004

This is a larger problem which transcends the Bush White House - I was writing, in 2000, about "faith based" politics. But, then, that was based on the overall attitudes of those on the religious right : against science.
posted by troutfishing at 10:34 PM on October 19, 2004

many Republicans, too, are frightened by the White House's "kill-or-be-killed desire to undermine public debate based on fact"

Curiously, none of them are either patriotic or brave enough to go public with it.
posted by psmealey at 9:46 AM on October 20, 2004