"Last week's announcement that Karl Rove is leaving the President's side at the end of the month means the Bush administration soon will be without the services of a cunning political operative who rarely missed an opportunity to exploit our national security challenges for partisan political advantage.
Rove will be remembered for winning campaigns by convincing the American people that only President Bush and the Republicans are tough enough to lead our country in these dangerous times.
Rove's thesis rings particularly hollow today, as the President resolutely refuses to offer a candid assessment about the reality in Iraq or to adapt his strategy to defeat our most dangerous enemies in an age of global terror."
With those words, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh—honorary chairman of the All America Political Action Committee—began an email message that fell into my overstuffed inbox last August. This message did not ask me to support, financially or otherwise, the All America PAC. It did not urge me to vote for Senator Bayh or elect any other Democrat to federal office. It did not request my political activism skills for getting a certain measure passed or bill vetoed. It did not even assure me that all hope for America's future lies in the Democratic Party. So what was the purpose of this communication?
On the surface, this email was a recap of history and current events relating to American national security. After reminding me of the latest bad news from the Bush administration and Iraq, Bayh went on to inform me of the agenda he and his fellow Democrats in Congress are pursuing to keep us safe from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. But the real, tacit purpose of this letter was to sell me the Democratic Party in next year's election. This is why it came with the title, "Reclaiming Our Legacy." Notice how these two aims of information and advertisement mesh so neatly together in the next few paragraphs:
"In the 110th Congress, I have been proud to see many of my fellow Democrats step forward to reclaim our Party's historic legacy on matters of national security. Remember: It was Franklin Roosevelt who stood up to fascism and led America's greatest generation to save the world from tyranny. It was Harry Truman who drew the first line in the sand against the spread of global communism and helped rebuild Europe and Asia after World War II. It was John F. Kennedy who called on us to "bear any burden and pay any price" in defense of liberty. And it was President Clinton who rallied the international community to put a stop to ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.
Under President Bush's leadership, we've spent four years, $450 billion, and sent more than 165,000 troops to Iraq, yet our National Intelligence Estimate indicates al Qaeda has gotten stronger. Many experts believe that we've created more terrorists than we've killed by our presence in Iraq.
Today, as the President continues to confuse the war on terror with a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, I am working with my fellow Democrats and a few courageous Republicans like Senator Richard Lugar to get our eye back on the ball.
This passage reveals numerous stratagems that the Democrats are using to regain control of the United States. The first is nostalgia for the international glory days and military successes of the Democratic Party. (These have been rather limited, forcing a selective recall. It was Republican presidents who withdrew from Vietnam and ended the Cold War.) Bayh hopes Americans have already forgotten how Carter messed up by supporting the despotic Shah of Iran and how Clinton neglected the Rwandan genocide, bungled the Kosovo conflict, and—oh yes—allowed Osama bin Laden to escape justice. The second, closely related stratagem is to persuade us that since their Republican counterparts have messed up so badly, Democrats can surely handle national security matters better. A plausible notion if I ever heard one.
The third trick is to spread truth whenever it helps their cause, and particularly whenever Americans have come to accept it—the opposite of true leadership, which involves telling the truth when no one wants to hear it at first. Since our invasion of Iraq, "Islamic" terrorist networks in the country have indeed continued to proliferate and violence has continued to increase year after year. Moreover, Senator Bayh is correct to note that President Bush fails to grasp the reality of the situation in Iraq. The fourth Democratic stratagem is the classic bandwagon fallacy disguised within a news report—hence the use of third person pronouns "we" and "our". Bayh is not giving me a choice; he is telling me that I am already a member of his team. Such psychological warfare proves remarkably effective. Both the nostalgia and bandwagon tricks target human emotions: a longing for the past and a desire to "fit in."
Another stratagem unique to this letter, which I pointed out at the beginning of this article, is its lack of pressure to do something. Many Americans are so disenchanted with contemporary national politics that they are not in the mood to engage in any form of activism. Although it represents a political action committee, this message does not call for any action. Its theme is, "We are here to serve you." For that reason, it can resonate more deeply with prospective voters. The email offers a message of hope—false hope.
The following paragraph returns to the theme that Democrats are foreign policy experts:
"As I reminded Chris Wallace recently on Fox News Sunday, Iraq today is not the central front in the war on terror - Afghanistan and Pakistan are. We were attacked from Afghanistan, and Pakistan is where the al Qaeda leadership is reconstituting itself today. Our attention and resources ought to be refocused on capturing Osama bin Laden and rooting out al Qaeda's enclaves across the region.
Here we get a hint that Bayh has a secret agenda hidden beneath his ostensible mission of representing the people of Indiana. Like most Republicans, he is pushing the "war on terror" despite the fact that a clear majority of both Hoosiers and Americans are now disenchanted with this concept, and despite persistent historical evidence that warfare is ineffective against terrorism. Yet in this passage, Bayh also gives the impression that Democrats will be winding down the Iraq war—an occurrence which Americans have been impatiently waiting for. Additionally, the Democrats vow to succeed where Bush has failed: Capture Osama bin Laden and dismantle al-Qaeda. Americans would certainly love to see those goals achieved.
However, the next passage is the most twisted one in the whole letter. It describes a serious issue:
"We also need a tough and smart approach to dealing with Iran, which continues its defiant march to nuclear weapons. According to the State Department, Iran is the No. 1 state sponsor of terror. We cannot afford to allow the world's most dangerous regime to acquire the world's deadliest weapons. But the Bush administration, obsessed with Iraq, has failed to rally our allies to effectively address this menace.
Before the summer recess, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved my nuclear safeguards legislation to prevent countries like Iran from walking up to the atomic threshold under the flimsy pretense of seeking civilian nuclear power. When Congress reconvenes after Labor Day, I will work to see that this crucial bill becomes law.
This is pure propaganda and nonsense. Iran is indeed undertaking a nuclear project, but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has provided no convincing evidence to show that it is a military nuclear project. In fact, all alleged evidence in this regard has originated from the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad without any corroboration from independent sources either inside or outside Iran. Furthermore, it was the United States itself which actually started the Iranian atomic program under the Shah back in the 1950s. It is a peaceful, civilian project designed to generate nuclear power for the large and populous country's electricity needs as a clean replacement for petroleum-supplied energy. According to Wikipedia, the vast majority of the Iranian people strongly support this nuclear power plan. In addition, the country's Supreme Religious Leader Ali Khameini issued a fatwa in August 2005 banning the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.
So who is disseminating this giant slander about Iran's nuclear energy program? The answer is greedy American petroleum barons and arms dealers. Iran sits on more oil than any other Middle Eastern country—more untapped oil than any other country of its size in the world, for that matter. In a twist of irony, this lowly, underdeveloped Muslim nation—the same once-great land which bestowed its name on the Persian Gulf—is now pioneering fossil fuel independence. The profit-mad petroleum elites hate this development with a vengeance. They wish to seize control of the extensive Iranian oil reserves as soon as possible so that they can sell us and Iran petroleum.
In addition, American defense manufacturers are rubbing their hands together, anxious for yet another armed conflict to follow Afghanistan and Iraq. The cruise missile strikes on Iraq in 1993 and 1996 and on Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998 as well as the low-level bombardment of Iraq from 1999 to 2002 served little purpose except to enrich the American weaponry magnates while they waited for more serious conflicts to erupt. Unless demand for guided missiles, bomber planes, tanks, warships, submarines, guns, GPS satellites, military computers and the like continues to increase, their profits cannot keep growing.
Thankfully, although the majority of Americans have been duped into believing that the Iranian government is running a nuclear weaponry program, only a small minority of intransigent neocons wishes to launch a war against Iran. Aware of this rising antiwar sentiment, Bayh avoids mentioning the word "war" directly, instead expressing the need for "a tough and smart approach to dealing with" this fictitious Iranian WMD problem.
At its core, the Democratic strategy involves promising to give the people what they want so that they can win election and force on the people measures and policies they don't want. That is what Bill Clinton did. That is the central tactic of the dishonest salesman. After all, the Democratic Party is for sale—literally. By voting for them in 2008, we the citizens of the United States will offer the Democrats access to enormous wealth via bribes, kickbacks, secret agreements, corporate connections, and war profiteering. The number of corrupt Republicans in federal office may be higher than the number of corrupt Democrats in federal office, but the Democratic Party is by no means honest and full of integrity. At least three in five senatorial Democrats, including the prestigious Indiana senator himself, are puppets of the outrageously gigantic American transnational corporations. Their whole career revolves around pleasing the mega-corporate tycoons while appearing to represent their constituents—just like most of their fellow Republicans.
The two most powerful groups of these American transnational companies comprise our energy and defense industries. Unlike many of his peers, Bayh does not have any personal connections to oil or missile firms. However, along with the other five hundred thirty four members of the US Congress, he is regularly subjected to the aggressive lobbying efforts of Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheon. Senator Bayh must then make a choice between giving in to the lobbyists and seeing his career decline. Which option do you think he chooses?
You may not desire an attack on Iran, but you can be sure that the heads of Shell and Boeing cannot wait for it to happen. They will stoop to anything for profit because they worship the golden idol of money.
The senator then moves on to list his other military and economic priorities:
"We also must redouble our efforts to honor the brave Americans who are sacrificing so much to keep us safe. The Senate recently approved comprehensive legislation to make sure our wounded warriors have access to the care they deserve when they return from battle. I was proud of my contribution to that bill - a provision that helps ensure that soldiers with traumatic brain injuries have access to the cutting-edge cognitive therapies that will allow them to recuperate and live full and productive lives.
I will continue to fight for more support for our military personnel, including pressing for enactment of my plan to relieve the financial strain on soldiers with school debt by suspending the accrual of interest on their federal student loans.
My fall agenda will continue to work on refocusing our national security policy as the Senate evaluates two September reports on the political and military outlook in Iraq. I also will continue to pursue an aggressive domestic agenda in the areas of innovation, education, and fiscal responsibility to make America more competitive in the global economy. Earlier this month, I introduced legislation to double research and development funding for small business innovators, and the Senate Judiciary Committee soon will consider my bill to protect U.S. companies that are losing profits and employees as a result of intellectual property theft (Wall Street Journal article).
Praising our troops and promising to give them "the care they deserve" has become a familiar, and generally insincere, Democratic mantra. It is a well chosen tactic used to counter the perception that Republicans are more supportive of and caring for our nation's armed forces. No matter their position on a war, Americans admire and respect the courage of those soldiers who have offered their lives for what they believe is a just cause, and they support all necessary medical care to improve and restore the health of veterans.
Almost as an afterthought, Bayh lists a couple of measures he worked on that are supposed to breathe new life into our sagging economy. "An aggressive domestic agenda in the areas of innovation, education and fiscal responsibility" sounds great, but the paucity of specifics is evident. The senator would make us rejoice at the government's generosity in doubling research and development funding for small businesses. Here again, the lessons of recent history prove helpful; President Bush has talked repeatedly of providing incentives for the creation, investment and expansion of small businesses, yet since 2001 the number of small businesses in the United States has declined by the tens of thousands thanks to the relentless growth of big business.
Also notice what these few sentences about the economy leave out. Our national budget deficit may be shrinking but our total national debt is rising more rapidly than ever before. (It exceeded $9 trillion in September of 2007 compared to $5.6 trillion when Bush entered office, $3 trillion when Clinton entered office, and only $970 billion when Reagan took office.) Where does Bayh plan to obtain the funds for repayment of government debt ($4 trillion of the national debt in 2007) as well as for education, medical care for veterans and antiterrorism efforts thruout the Middle East? The most likely answer is a repeat of the Clinton policy: increased taxation of middle-class Americans.
Bayh concludes the All America PAC communiqué in predictable fashion:
"It is well past time for the United States to reassert global leadership and to address the many challenges undermining our strength at home. As we turn the page on the Karl Rove era and the White House loses its Svengali of national security politics, I pledge to continue my work in Washington to insist on smarter domestic and foreign policies to keep America safe, prosperous and strong."
If only that glorious proclamation were true. Sadly, it is just rhetoric. Our nation's founders would be disgusted at the mismatch between this appealing finale and Bayh's record of walking the fence on issues of such monumental significance to the well-being of the United States. Bayh even dares to insinuate that he is not a "politician" in the negative sense of that word! Judging by the rhetoric of this message and his voting records, he is as much a politician as Rove was, and I would not be surprised if Hillary Clinton were to select him as her presidential campaign strategist. At the beginning of his email, Bayh described Rove as "a cunning political operative who rarely missed an opportunity to exploit our national security challenges for partisan political advantage." Yet a similar political epitaph might someday suit Bayh. Believe me, this prominent senator and his Democratic cronies do not miss "an opportunity to exploit our national security challenges [both real and contrived] for [their own] partisan political advantage".
Furthermore, every president since Woodrow Wilson has attempted to exercise world leadership, yet few—in my opinion, only Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan—have been global leaders that America can be proud of. And during each presidency since Wilson, the opposition party has claimed that it could do a better job of world leadership. To counteract the growing isolationist tendency among Americans, Bayh appeals to their pride and innate desire to see America reassert wise, moral and upright international leadership. Promises to exercise true global leadership have gone unfulfilled or only partially fulfilled so many times that the phrase has become tired and meaningless. Yet as much as Americans are sick of hearing this phrase, Bayh uses it precisely because it is a vague collection of words with a beautiful ring, to cover the fact that American foreign policy under a Democratic-led government will essentially be business as usual.
The senator closes his message with the words "Sincerely, Evan Bayh." Sincerity, honesty and integrity are the qualities Americans desire in their elected officials. Thus all candidates claim to possess them. Senator Bayh knows that he and his fellow Democrats cannot win strongly unless they are perceived as truthful and upright. However, the sincerity of most Democrats—including Bayh—is questionable at best. Corruption and cronyism are rampant thruout Washington, DC. How can we trust rich individuals to enact policies that benefit middle-class and poor Americans? How can we trust individuals whose voting records are inconsistent and fail to match what they preach? Bayh pretends to be in touch with the average American, yet his words and actions indicate that he is a member of the American political elite.
The American people are dissatisfied with the Bush administration, and Democrats are eagerly taking advantage of that dissatisfaction. Their strategy to attain resounding victory is complex, subtle and clever. Like good salespeople, they make Americans think that they cannot live without the Democratic Party. But the truth is that both political parties are corrupt and neither is fit to govern the United States. A Democratic triumph would be a victory only for the privileged elite and the mega-corporate monsters they serve.
Log In | Register
Seeded on Wed Feb 8, 2012 5:04 PM EST (LifeNews.com)
Okay, I can handle this! I like Santorum as well as Paul and Gingrich, and would gladly vote for any of these three fine men if they win the Republican nomination for President. I can't say the same for Mitt Romney.