Thursday, July 08, 2004
Sorry about the hiatus, I temporarily stopped caring about anything.
Ahh, so much to catch up on. Let's see. Kerry chooses Edwards and the Republicans call Edwards "a disingenuous unaccomplished liberal and friend to personal injury trial lawyers." Well, those were probably the two most predictable things to happen so far. I'm just pleased that honor and dignity has been restored to the White House, and that Bush himself did not take part in calling Edwards a liar. Bush only called Edwards incapable of being president (Admittedly, it was by implication - when asked what the difference between Cheney and Edwards was, Bush curtly responded "Dick Cheney can be president. The irony was that many of us already thought Cheney was President). In any case, I think that we're much better off with the President being 'above the fray' and leaving it to his hired goons to be looser with ethics. After all, Bush can't be held responsible for what he ordered his underlings to do. We learned that at Abu Ghraib.
What stands out especially from this anti-Edwards screed that the Republican Party has published is that it doesn't even make an attempt to convince anyone of anything rational. For instance, one of the headers on this page proclaims "Edwards' Anti Growth Agenda" [sic]. Now, growth is one of those things that everyone's for. Even economists like growth, for cryin' out glayven. But not Edwards. Apparently, Edwards prefers contraction and dire economic times. His policies are carefully formulated to destroy the American economic engine and mire our people in poverty for decades.
Similarly, this header: "Edwards Voted Against Support For Our Troops". Obviously, Edwards hates America, and particularly hates American soldiers. There couldn't be any other legitimate reason to oppose an appropriation bill involving the military.
But maybe these examples seem unconvincing. So here's my favorite header from the whole page: "EDWARDS IS PHONY AND DISINGENUOUS" The capitals are theirs, not mine. I guess the striking thing is that this web page is filled with assertions, labels, and demonizations, but features a breathtaking lack of cogent arguments or attempts at persuasion. It's basically just a sheet of talking points that the Republican faithful should believe in and get repeated as much as possible in various media outlets.
The danger of such an approach (you know, one that avoids issues, or logic) is that you end up tarring yourself with the same brush. Under the 'Edwards is Phony' header is a list of ways in which Edwards deviates from being 'rural'. Included on the list of failings is that Edwards has never done any serious farming, doesn't follow NASCAR races, hasn't been hunting or fishing in years, was once (but perhaps is no longer?) a country music fan, and, get this, he doesn't know the make and model of his truck!!
Now, maybe I'm just stupid for believing that reality has a role in defining a person, but I always thought that Edwards connected to rural folk because he grew up in a rural mill town. But what a stifling view of reality the Republican party betrays. Evidently, if you're rural, you farm, hunt and fish, watch car races, and listen to Billy Ray Cyrus in your Ford F-150. If you don't participate in these activities or love these pastimes, your experience is no longer authentic. Your roots are suddenly illegitimate. Edwards is a great story of an American family climbing from humble beginnings to great economic, professional, and political success. But apparently, it is a story that should have no relevance or be of any interest to rural Americans, because Edwards doesn't like country music anymore. More importantly, the American experience, is, in the eyes of the GOP, reducible to the most general of stereotypes. I feel like there's something profound to say about the ideas of populism and diversity, but maybe all I'm really sensing is the complete disconnection from these ideas that the GOP displays by its embrace of generalizations over individuality, predictability over authenticity, and gross categorization over actual engagement.
Ok, enough of this. I've got some things to say about Nader too, but they'll just have to wait for a bit.
0 comments
Ahh, so much to catch up on. Let's see. Kerry chooses Edwards and the Republicans call Edwards "a disingenuous unaccomplished liberal and friend to personal injury trial lawyers." Well, those were probably the two most predictable things to happen so far. I'm just pleased that honor and dignity has been restored to the White House, and that Bush himself did not take part in calling Edwards a liar. Bush only called Edwards incapable of being president (Admittedly, it was by implication - when asked what the difference between Cheney and Edwards was, Bush curtly responded "Dick Cheney can be president. The irony was that many of us already thought Cheney was President). In any case, I think that we're much better off with the President being 'above the fray' and leaving it to his hired goons to be looser with ethics. After all, Bush can't be held responsible for what he ordered his underlings to do. We learned that at Abu Ghraib.
What stands out especially from this anti-Edwards screed that the Republican Party has published is that it doesn't even make an attempt to convince anyone of anything rational. For instance, one of the headers on this page proclaims "Edwards' Anti Growth Agenda" [sic]. Now, growth is one of those things that everyone's for. Even economists like growth, for cryin' out glayven. But not Edwards. Apparently, Edwards prefers contraction and dire economic times. His policies are carefully formulated to destroy the American economic engine and mire our people in poverty for decades.
Similarly, this header: "Edwards Voted Against Support For Our Troops". Obviously, Edwards hates America, and particularly hates American soldiers. There couldn't be any other legitimate reason to oppose an appropriation bill involving the military.
But maybe these examples seem unconvincing. So here's my favorite header from the whole page: "EDWARDS IS PHONY AND DISINGENUOUS" The capitals are theirs, not mine. I guess the striking thing is that this web page is filled with assertions, labels, and demonizations, but features a breathtaking lack of cogent arguments or attempts at persuasion. It's basically just a sheet of talking points that the Republican faithful should believe in and get repeated as much as possible in various media outlets.
The danger of such an approach (you know, one that avoids issues, or logic) is that you end up tarring yourself with the same brush. Under the 'Edwards is Phony' header is a list of ways in which Edwards deviates from being 'rural'. Included on the list of failings is that Edwards has never done any serious farming, doesn't follow NASCAR races, hasn't been hunting or fishing in years, was once (but perhaps is no longer?) a country music fan, and, get this, he doesn't know the make and model of his truck!!
Now, maybe I'm just stupid for believing that reality has a role in defining a person, but I always thought that Edwards connected to rural folk because he grew up in a rural mill town. But what a stifling view of reality the Republican party betrays. Evidently, if you're rural, you farm, hunt and fish, watch car races, and listen to Billy Ray Cyrus in your Ford F-150. If you don't participate in these activities or love these pastimes, your experience is no longer authentic. Your roots are suddenly illegitimate. Edwards is a great story of an American family climbing from humble beginnings to great economic, professional, and political success. But apparently, it is a story that should have no relevance or be of any interest to rural Americans, because Edwards doesn't like country music anymore. More importantly, the American experience, is, in the eyes of the GOP, reducible to the most general of stereotypes. I feel like there's something profound to say about the ideas of populism and diversity, but maybe all I'm really sensing is the complete disconnection from these ideas that the GOP displays by its embrace of generalizations over individuality, predictability over authenticity, and gross categorization over actual engagement.
Ok, enough of this. I've got some things to say about Nader too, but they'll just have to wait for a bit.
Comments:
Post a Comment
