The peace candidate?
Who will be the peace candidate in the 2004 US presidential election? With Kerry talking about putting another 40,000 troops in Iraq among other highly militaristic moves (interview, Defense News, June 24, 2004) and beating back criticism of the invasion in the Democratic platform, is the peace field open to President Bush?
Bush seems to think so. After listening to some news clips and reading a transcript of yesterday’s Bush campaign event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, I will go so far to say that the 2004 campaign has sunk deeply into an Orwellian chasm, where the newspeak flows and creeping proto-fascism has begun to take a chokehold.
“War is peace” is the theme. When Mr. Bush “interfaces” with the citizens we are told that the purpose of the Iraq war, and the Terror War generally, is to promote peace. So why should not the self-described War President also be the Peace President?
What Bush actually said so defies credulity that Orwell himself would have been proud to have written this line for the Squealer:
The enemy declared war on us, and you just got to know nobody wants to be the War President. I want to be the Peace President. (Applause.) I want to be the President — after four years, four more in this office, I want people to look back and say, the world is a more peaceful place. (Applause.) America is a safer country. Four more years, and America will be safer and the world will be more peaceful. (Applause.)
The promise of peace the president spouts is highly dubious. What was he telling us going back 15 months? In April 2003, just after the invasion force had taken Baghdad, during a photo op with wounded soldiers Mr. Bush said:
It’s a brave lot here in Bethesda; people who are willing to sacrifice for something greater than themselves. And I feel lucky as an American to be a part of a country where citizens are willing to do that. I reminded them and their families that the war in Iraq is—it’s really about peace, trying to make the world more peaceful.
When Mr. Bush? When?? How many more will have to die or be hurt before all the enemies we’ve created in the meanwhile clue us in to the fact that your promise is nothing more than emotional cover designed to finesse minds and obtain consent for the horrors?
In truth, because the people we have attacked never will accept a peace on our terms, use of force will be a permanent feature of the landscape the president has created for us with his wars.
Returning to Cedar Rapids, the wild applause of a highly controlled audience—where only Bush-loyalist, middle-American brownshirts are allowed—belies the proto-fascist undercurrent of the whole Bush juggernaut. Oh no, Bush, and by extension his brownshirts never will forget September 11! No-siree:
AUDIENCE MEMBER: It appears that some people are forgetting 9/11 … remember 9/11 and those who are fighting for our freedom.
THE PRESIDENT: Interesting question. He says it appears to him there’s an effort to forget about 9/11. We’ll never forget 9/11….
The subtext is that disagreement with Bush’s wars is tantamount to “forgetting September 11″.
Iraq pseudo-sovereignty and Mr. Bush’s claim on the peace mantle has Kerry and the Democrats in a box on issues of war and peace. Kerry can’t budge from his Bush+ foreign policy orientation without being pummeled as a flip-flopper. But as a candidate he has none of the tools of the executive at his disposal in order to influence the colonial projects—or perhaps more importantly to influence how the colonial projects look to American voters. I don’t think Kerry thought this through very well and it’s going to hurt him.
There perhaps is a rough parallel here to the 1968 campaign where Humphrey was hamstrung into a deeply entrenched war in Vietnam his own president had dug into for him while he stubbornly rejected options that could have shown voters—including peace voters—an alternate course out of the war.
Nixon filled the void with his phony secret peace plan. The parallel with George W. Bush is that the hard-line Nixon suddenly made himself look like he could cash in the fruits of his bellicose stance in order to bring the boys home and to achieve the panacea of peace and security. But like Bush’s droning rhetoric about peace and freedom following his masterful quenching of threats, the Nixon plan was nothing but vapor designed to manage public opinion.
Kerry better take note of what is happening here. What goes on at these Bush events is very powerful stuff. Bush loyalists and many other people in middle America do not possess an analysis adequate to counteract the falsehoods and blatant manipulation that feeds their group fervor. They are vulnerable to God and country messages that reach hearts and engender feelings of limitless power. They like to feel powerful because of the fact that we can dominate and destroy Iraq while changing its government, occupying its lands, and rebuilding it in our image at our president’s will.
With the right messenger, natural skepticism about creating peace with war and human feeling for those who become dead and maimed the process—amongst our own people and the population we have attacked—can be erased. Bush is an adequate performer in this regard. He slowly is filling the country with this poison on his campaign tour and with his organized marketing and advertising.
The Democrats could wake up the first week of November without a victory because of an inept decision to cast off the anti-war base while leaving Bush to create an Orwellian meaning of peace.
July 22nd, 2004 at 03:18
Orwellian undertones, Orwellian effects, yes, but I am not sure I ascribe it to machinations. Those “brownshirts” are people who really believe that peace is achieved by defeating enemies on the battlefield, virtually everyone except us pacifists believes it. (Pacifist, now there’s a term you don’t hear much these days. Considered a quaint notion at best, treasonous at worst.) So if you say the audience is “brownshirts,” well, they represent the American consensus. Would Kerry really disagree that winning the war in Iraq will lead to peace? Your comment that “the people we have attacked will never accept peace on our terms” is central to all this. We are not interested in any negotiations short of complete capitulatoin or destruction and the other side surely cannot accept this. So total war until one side is exhausted. That’s the formula. And really there is no way out of it rhetorically. Both sides paint the other as less than human.
By the way, I don’t find the “brownshirts” comment helpful. It makes a point that may be legitimate but then shuts off thinking. My brother is one of those “brownshirts.” I have to more fully envision his humanity if I am going to talk with him about any of this.
Thanks for the writing. Keep on slicing. Jonathan
July 22nd, 2004 at 04:35
Yes, dear man, the brownshirt comment is a lightning rod and I considered not using it. But I kept it for two reasons. (1) Has to do with what you call “the American concensus”, or what Chomsky has called “the jingoist concensus.” With Bush, it’s developing into proto-fascism. Notice, I did not say fascism. Not yet anyway. I’ll post on that idea later. There’s a fantastic piece about this on the Cursor site. (2) Those audiences are tightly controlled. They want only loyalists in there. Part of how I reacted to the scene Bush creates comes from listening to Duke Skorich (the KUWS Superior, WI talk show guy, 5-6 central time M, Tu, W) discuss the recent Bush foray into Duluth. Calling the extreme Bush loyalists you see at these events brownshirts is an embellishment that just reflects my feelings–not entirely specious–and it’s my blog so I can write those any way I want. Agreed, most would find the characterization troubling. But my purpose here is to trouble. I doubt thinking would shut off, if only because they’d have to think about how to attack me and demonstrate me to be wrong. They may never even have been confronted with the term before. So good man, don’t send your brother here for edification! And thanks so much for the comments. This is fun! Please keep it going!! I’m getting a little tired of wasting time trying to engage the tough minded liberals in Steve Gilliard’s stable.
July 22nd, 2004 at 05:06
You and I agree, Deep Blade, but I’m hoping (because I’m human and that’s more or less what we do)that Kerry’s strategy is to stick close to Bush on the war so that he can contrast sharply on social & economic issues. As out-n’-out crazy as things have become in this country, Kerry seems to have a kind of center and poise that just might be what we need to slow the fascist juggernaut enough to change course. I think the important thing is to keep amplifying progressive policy alternatives while this downshifting (hmmm, do juggernauts downshift?)goes on.
July 22nd, 2004 at 05:48
cs, I’ve sort of floated back and forth on the question about whether or not Kerry would make anything better. Over at Donkey Rising, this piece reveals some very recent Kerry statements on how he would handle Iraq. Like so much of what you get from JFK, nothing is clear. Sounds like it might be a smidge better. But then, one “fall surprise” could be Bush ordering a partial withdrawal. Inexplicably, Kerry’s left that entire policy direction to Bush. And what if Kerry is elected and not just Iraq, but a lot of things get worse. Fair or unfair, his missteps will be amplified a hundred-fold. That fascism could really come a knockin’ then. Nader is right to say electing Kerry without a mandate could be deadly. The tough minded liberals are always short of thoughts about what happens if Kerry wins.