The cowboy's honorable orientation to violence

I have written about the cowboy before.Bush likes to draw upon the American heroic archetype of the cowboy, and a deeper exploration of the cowboy archetype explains some of what has polarized this election.

In 1954 Robert Warshow asserted that the enduring appeal of the cowboy is based on his successful orientation to violence. That is, the cowboy is clearly capable of violence (he's a gun-toting hero), and the cowboy is willing to use violence (don't make me have to kill you)—but he doesn't use his capacity for violence except to defend his honor—which makes him trustworthy. Warshow claimed that it is the cowboy hero's self-restraint that makes him such a popular American archetype. To make this point more clearly, the cowboy uses his capacity for violence to defend himself and his honor; if he uses violence for profit or to intimidate the weak, he crosses the line between cowboy hero and gunslinger.

The cowboy expresses the American identity in that America is willing to use its capacity for violence, if necessary, but can be trusted to restrain that violence unless attacked. The red/blue split in this country can be attributed to these two sides of the cowboy: one half of the country finds that Bush expresses the capacity and willingness to use violence—and for that reason, will vote for him, because they don't trust the pacifistic Kerry to express that willingness to violence. The other half of the country feels that Bush crossed the line between law and outlaw when he invaded a country that had not attacked us—and for that reason they will not vote for him, as he is no longer the cowboy hero, but instead, the cowboy outlaw. For this group, Bush did not restrain his capacity for violence, so he is not to be trusted.

Bin Laden is playing on Americans' identity with the cowboy hero. He has studied us closely and well. He's mocking the president by refuting the idea that Bush is capable and willing to use violence (by portraying him as more interested in a children's book), which brings out the protectiveness of the Republicans, who rush to defend Bush's honor with their vote. And he is playing the "instigator" card for the Democrats, who are horrified by this tidal change in our foreign policy. With Bush's war on Iraq, we have now attacked a country that has never attacked us, which displaces us from the moral high ground and aligns us with nations we fought against throughout the Cold War. This group blames Bush for our loss of honor among other nations.

Why we are so divided on the Iraq War

What makes it possible for the country to be so divided over the Iraq war? The poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) concerning American perceptions of our war with Iraq and our other war against terrorism shows that we are divided along political lines, and that our politics are very much influenced by emotions. http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports

Do you agree with the following statement?	Bush supporters agree	Kerry supporters agree
Iraq had WMD or a WMD program prior to the US invasion.	72%	26%
The Duelfer report concluded Iraq had WMD or a WMD program. [This statement is factually incorrect.]	57%	23%
Iraq supported Al-Qaeda.	75%	30%
Iraq was directly involved in 9/11.	20%	8%
The 9/11 Commission said Iraq supported Al-Qaeda. [This statement is factually incorrect.]	57%	27%
The world at large opposes the US invasion of Iraq. [This statement correctly reflects poll results.]	31%	74%

The PIPA report concludes, "Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda."

This report indicates how insulated each side is within its own media and friendship networks. Bush supporters are more likely to trust the Bush Administration at face value and, like Bush, are resistant to reports that question the Administration's version of events. The report continues,

"The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to Steven Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake. This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters--and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters."

Kerry supporters are less inclined to trust the Bush Administration, so they look to reports like that of the 9/11 Commission to affirm or deny the Administration's perspective.

This divide is widened by each side's reliance on media reporting that confirms that trust or mistrust: Bush supporters are more likely to watch cable news that supports the Administration's positions, while Kerry supporters are more likely to watch cable news that gives equal time to the independent reports that conflict with the Bush Administration's positions.

How Bin Laden can play the Red/Blue card

With his recent video, Bin Laden is refuting Bush's claim to be winning the war on terror. Bin Laden is demonstrating for the American people that he is in good health and has the power and ability to reach into each of our homes through our friendly television sets. He asserts, through his ability to project his image into our living rooms, that we did not win even the battle, much less the war, against him.

In addition, he implies we started this fight when we supported Israel's attack on Lebonon. And by claiming that he won't attack us again if we don't attack him again, he is shifting the blame for any further terrorist attacks onto us.

Previously Bin Laden justified his hatred of the U.S. on the grounds of our military presence in Saudi Arabia, the holy ground of Islam. But with the war on Iraq, Bush effectively shifted our military to Iraq, thus creating a non-Saudi military base in the Middle East. I don't mean to say that Bush attacked Iraq just to appease Bin Laden. The Saudis wanted us out, too. And Iraq seemed like an efficient choice for our military base because it had been weakened by both military and economic sanctions and because our previous war against Iraq, the 1991 Gulf War, is generally considered "a just war."

With the U.S. military based now in Iraq, Bin Laden is no longer able to sustain his previous anti-American justification, so Bin Laden has switched to accusing us of provoking his campaign of terrorism against us--and he attempts to make us responsible for prolonging it.

Accusing us of provoking the 9/11 attack is important to him, not only to blame us for his group's actions, but also to remind us that, with Bush's war on Iraq, we no longer can claim the moral high ground, because we have now attacked a nation that had not first attacked us or our allies.

No matter which side you are on, America has a new identity in the world because of the current war against Iraq. And that matters to each of us because America's identity is incorporated into our own self-identities. Bin Laden knows enough about the American psyche to realize that this change in "what it means to be an American" has polarized our country.

Enough Already -- Turn off the TV

Okay, I'm choosing to go off-line on this election for a while. Here's what I've read lately that encourages me to relax:

An article from Great Britain questioning Bush's mental fitness reassures me that his demeanor during the debates will not be swept under the rug. Bush seemed unbalanced during the debates--it's no wonder that the rest of world is desperate for the U.S. to oust him (see earlier post for link). This is a second reason to send a "vote of no-confidence," that is, both his mental state and his administrative record.

The New York Times lead editorial endorses "John Kerry for President," supporting Kerry for his record and his presentation during the debates, as well as criticizing Bush for his record over the past four years and for his demeanor during the debates.

Working for Change provides an opinion piece by Bryon Williams that predicts, "the election will not be close." Williams argues well (1) for the polls being unrepresentative because of high voter registration by Democrats and failure to poll younger voters who have only cell phones and (2) for incumbent races being essentially confidence/no-confidence elections, so that the poll results for the question, "are we headed in the right direction," is the major predictor of the election results--the other questions aren't that important. We need to remember that statistical data is only as good as its interpretation.

And for comic relief, there's Jonathan Chait's column for October 14, "Vote Bush, and Let Him Clean up His Own Mess," which makes an ironic case for letting Bush win, while pointing out the uncomfortably true aspect of a Kerry win--it's going to be VERY hard for Kerry to look good while he cleans up Bush's mess.

And finally, the post-debate debate over Kerry's reference to Mary Cheney cannot last another two weeks.. Even the TV news is going to have to return to the issues. And as Fox News has shown us, the Republicans really don't want to talk about Mary Cheney. Too much of Bush's base believes that's it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals because homosexuality is a choice, not an inherent quality like skin color. That part of Bush's base isn't comfortable that the second-in-line-for-President opposes an amendment discriminating against homosexuals and has accepted that sexual orientation is not a choice--it is one of the ways we are "created in God's image." No wonder Fox news isn't even talking about it.

So let's encourage people to vote their conscience--and let's just get out the vote!

Jon Stewart gets it right--again

Jon Stewart appeared on CNN's Crossfire and blasted the hosts for squandering their opportunity to help the public understand the issues of this election. The film is available online at ifilm.com. Steward didn't single out Crossfire as much as point out that they were part of the problem when they could be part of the solution.

Robert Mancini of MTV has this to say,

In an era when the media is increasingly fragmented and viewers can surround themselves with programming that falls right in line with their own views, be they on the right or the left, Stewart's blast seemed especially on point. It seems fitting that the tirade came on a day when much of the media attention focused on the presidential race was directed at the mention of Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter during the last presidential debate, as opposed to the issues addressed at that debate.

And it is disappointing what we focus on after these debates. Yes, it is part of the dumbing down of TV news, the Inquirer-style production of celebrity from incidental crimes. The big issue of the Scott Peterson case is that he's being charged with the murder of his unborn child, in addition to his wife, but that's not the focus on the news. Other than that, there's nothing more to this story--women are killed by significant others every day.

After the debates, I wanted to see a splice of two short clips: Bush's debate "gaff," when he ever-so sarcastically denied saying that he didn't think Bin Laden was a threat, spliced with the Bush revelation that Kerry was referencing. Then I wanted the news to discuss how smart Bush was in the earlier clip--saying essentially that Bin Laden is only ONE of the many terrorists out there, and that we will make a mistake if we focus only on him. Then I wanted some discussion of the inappropriate way Bush talked to Kerry--it was not presidential, it was not even worthy of English parliament members. It was the childish way he makes fun of the opposition to his base. I've talked before in this blog about how Bush directed his debate responses to his base and how that isn't persuasive.

I wanted a discussion of Kerry's vote on the $87 billion--and the bill Kerry did support--and the problems the troops are having because Bush wouldn't wait for the funding before taking us to war without imminent threat. It isn't one senator's fault that our troops don't have armor--but it is a problem that our president wouldn't wait for equipment before sending the troops into battle. We can't let Bush off the hook on some claim of "faulty intelligence on WMDs" since many of us knew at the time that Bush was collecting intelligence to support his already-made decision, not to find out whether his decision was right--and because the rest of the world saw through his arguments, too.

Bush blew it and the news isn't reporting it. This isn't a matter of equal time for the candidates--it's about monopolies in news media ownership and the need to fill several channels of 24-hour "news"--and the result is the loss of real news.

World wants Kerry

The Guardian's story, "Poll Reveals World Anger at Bush: 8 out of 10 Countries Favour Kerry for President, is very revealing about how Bush has garnered hostile public opinion around the world. It also backs up Kerry's comment last March that world leaders want a new U.S. president.

The health of Bush

Although a lot of jokes have been made about Bush's jacket bulge, I never could believe that he was capable of processing a live feed and speaking, at the same time. The bulletproof vest seemed a more likely explanation, despite the Administration's denials--but then they denied that there was anything there at all.

A more interesting discussion of the odd shape beneath Bush's jacket comes from Kevin Drum's blog, The Washington Monthly. Drum provides pictures from each of the debates showing that Bush had the same boxy shape under his jacket during each debate. Drum's "medical contraption" link provides information on a portable, wearable defibrillator that looks very much like the bulge under the jacket.

That immediately reminded me of Bush's fainting episode (the pretzel attack), which could have been caused by cardiac arrhythmia. Then I remembered that Bush skipped his physical this August because he was too busy campaigning.

The president's medical records have to be made public, and either an implanted defibrillator or a pharmaceutical treatment would show up on his records. Drum also links to Dr. Zebra's site, "The Medical History of George W. Bush," which also mentions the "syncope" (blackout or fainting) episode.

So maybe he's having trouble with heart rhythm? It seems far more likely than any other proposed explanation. Stress can trigger arrythymia and syncope--and the debates obviously put Bush in an agitated and aggrevated state--so a strap-on defibrillator now gets my vote for the question of the bulge.

Rove exposed

Josh Marshall's blog, Talking Points Memo, provides this link to the Atlantic Monthly's article on Karl Rove. And if you aren't reading Talking Points Memo, you should be.

Three Close Encounters

Bush, once again, forgot his audience was larger than his usual sycophantical choir. His use of code was conspicuous: "no litmus test" was the essence of his surprisingly brief response on the Row v. Wade question. Bush didn't elaborate, so I suspected he had tripped off into his own cozy world again. One more confirmation that I'm not the audience whom Bush is addressing in the debates. I had to look on the web to find that a "litmus test for judges" has meaning for a lot of people. Just not for me.

This was much like the Dred Scott reference in the second debate, which would be understood by the voters Bush represents as a reference to Row v. Wade. For a good discussion, check Paperweight's blog.

I first encountered the argument that equates slavery and abortion from Alan Keyes, who is running against Barack Obama in Illinois. Listening to Keyes on NPR's Fresh Air, I thought I was hearing the idiosyncratic ravings of a madman when Keyes compared Obama to a slave-holder because of Obama's position on abortion. Here's a sample of Keyes explanation:

One of the things I learned--because I had slave ancestors, and I, as I said, have deeply looked at, and thought about, meditated on the injustice involved in slavery.

Slavery is not a RACIAL issue. It's an issue of human justice! And that means that when someone is enslaved, in violation of the fundamental premise of human dignity, we are turning our backs on our decent humanity.

That's not a racial issue, and abortion is not a racial issue, but the principle involved is the very principle that lay at the heart of the kind of arguments that the slaveholders made in denigration of black Americans. But it was not RACE in fact that caused that denigration, it was an utter disregard for decent humanity.

What a shock to learn that many people--including the current president--equate pro-choice with pro-slavery. Yikes.

I could get petty--the spittle in the corner of Bush's mouth--the fake smile that failed to conceal his alarming propensity to rage. I keep expecting him to pull a Rumplestiltskin--to get so angry he pulls himself in two.

And to be fair, I wish Kerry had bitten his tongue last night when he thought of Mary Cheney's sexual orientation. While I don't agree with Lynne Cheney that Kerry's reference means he's "not a good man," I do agree that it was inappropriate. I think Kerry is a good man, and I suspect he's kicking himself today for vocalizing what popped into his mind. Given Bush's waffling and refusal to declare his views, and given Cheney's mousiness on his own differences with Bush, I can understand how Kerry would make the mental association, but I expect better self-censorship from our next president. I gave Edwards a "tacky" demerit, too, when he brought up Mary Cheney's sexual orientation. Even if her reputation as a gay rights activist is pertinent, and I'm not sure it is, there are better ways to make the point: sexual orientation is no more a choice than the color of one's skin, and an amendment discriminating against gays is no more Constitutional than miscegenation laws, which were found to be unconstitutional in 1967.

Still, Kerry gave a good performance overall. He's the one. I was going to vote for the Democratic party platform anyway, but now I feel much better about Kerry.

Why Kerry knew less about the Iraq threat than Bush

It is not reasonable to think that Bush and Kerry had the same amount of information prior to the war with Iraq. The president is privy to the most classified of information. The president has a much better picture of foreign situations than any senator. So the Bushies' tactic of comparing Kerry's vote on Iraq with Bush's decision to wage war ("I know you are, but what am I") just doesn't add up. Mr. Bush had more information and better information, more highly classified intelligence reports and better teams of staff working on that intelligence, than Senator Kerry had.

And this spin is eagerly accepted by the people who, like the president, can't handle the possibility that we went to war in error. Good people who bought Bush's rationale for war and now don't want to contemplate the magnitude of the error--and the realization that they were duped.

Choosing to see "terrorism" as a nuisance

It makes perfect sense to me that Americans should consider "terrorism" a nuisance. I was in elementary school in Austin in the 1950s, and we managed bomb drills, ads for bomb shelters, Conelrad alerts ("This is a test of the Emergency Alert System") on radio and television, and open-air siren tests. Our choice during the Cold War was the same as it is now: to be always frightened by--in terror of--a constant threat or to regard it as a nuisance.

It is a mark of strength and faith to choose to see a long-term threat and fight as a nuisance. When my husband was diagnosed with recurrence of cancer, of course we were initially terrified. But we soon accepted our "new normal" because we understood that it was our choice to see cancer as a horror or a nuisance. We chose the attitude that living with cancer is a nuisance--and we concentrate on living.

Likewise, Americans can choose to focus on how "9/11 changed the world" or we can accept that our "new normal" involves nuisances like long lines at the airport. When I look around me, it looks like life is mostly the same as it was before 9/11. After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, we always knew we could be attacked again--and we were--and we can be again. Each of us has to choose whether to be cowering tools of terrorists or to disdain terror--and get on with living.

The Cold War lasted about 45 years. The "War on Terror" is likely to be just a long a battle. It is a mark of strength and faith to choose to see this long-term threat and fight as a nuisance.

Disarming when there are no arms

The latest report, finding that Iraq had no WMDs, calls for a better response than what we hear from the current Administration: "Saddam wanted WMDs." That's no reason to attack another sovereign nation. I'm frustrated that the discussion of WMDs and Iraq doesn't focus on the natural and logical consequences of attacking a disarmed nation.

Let's imagine for a moment that a police officer confronts a known criminal and suspects that the criminal has a gun. But the criminal denies having a gun, and the police officer can't see a gun or evidence of a concealed gun. If the police officer shoots anyway and then finds that the criminal, in truth, had no gun, will Internal Affairs accept an argument from the police officer that the criminal wanted a gun and would have used it, if he had one?

Too bad the Administration isn't facing an Internal Affairs investigation. Surely the Administration wouldn't get away with STILL making the assertion that "Saddam refused to disarm." Saddam assured us that he was disarmed--and he was--but we didn't believe him--and we were wrong. So we attacked a disarmed country that had not attacked us. And the Administration couldn't get away with STILL making the assertion that Saddam posed a threat because he would have passed WMDs to terrorists, when Saddam had no WMDs to pass to terrorists and no connections to terrorists.

But this isn't about a hypothetical police officer and a hypothetical Internal Affairs investigation. Instead we have George W. Bush, who answers only to his own laws, and refuses to admit that his rationale for war was wrong. He lead us into war because he made a mistake. Instead he changes his rationale for war: he "flip-flops." He faces no investigation of his actions; instead he attacks those who question him.

I'm angry about the way the Bush Administration has reconfigured what it means to be an American in the contemporary world. America is the strongest and richest nation, and the good will of other countries depends on our ability to convince them we are trustworthy. But the Bush Administration has sullied our image worldwide and destroyed our credibility as a nation with the ability to restrain our capacity for violence. The capacity for violence is heroic only when it is restrained.

And we pay the price in American pride, Americans' trust of government, and American credibility abroad.

What kind of sycophant would you like me to be?

I hope Bush learned some lessons from last night's debate. In short, he was unprepared for direct confrontation because he has isolated himself from direct and open questioning and because he surrounds himself with sycophants.

Sycophant: A person who seeks favor by flattering people of wealth or influence; a parasite; a toady. (Dictionary.com "word of the day" for 3/27/2000)

For example, Bush admitted in an interview with Fox News' Brit Hume on 9/23/03 that he doesn't read the news, but instead gets "briefed by people who probably read the news themselves." Bush complained that the news is mixed with opinion, but he just wants the news. "And the best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world." From Bush's face and body language during the debate, his "objective sources" do not seem to have prepared him for the doubts Americans have about his foreign policy and his invasion of Iraq.

In addition to avoiding newspapers, Bush has isolated himself from press questions and from audiences who are not part of his fan base. Bush has held far fewer news conferences than recent presidents, and many of the press conferences he has held were scripted. His audiences along the campaign trail are pre-approved, and their questions also are approved in advance. This isolation and protection has left him ill prepared for open debate and spontaneous questions.

Last night he was clearly irritated that his decisions were criticised and petulant when he had to defend them. He was visibly shaken when his spins were met with Kerry's clear explanations. Bush's performance revealed a man who is seriously disabled by his own choices to isolate himself and rely on sycophants.

Here's my favorite line from 101 Dalmations:

Cruella De Vil: What kind of sycophant are you?
Cruella's Assistant: Uh... what kind of sycophant would you like me to be?

Can we talk?

In last night's debate, Bush' petulance and facial contortions reminded me most of an adolescent girl, which would make him the actual "girly man" his campaign has been trying to project onto intellectuals and liberals. Projection is a defense mechanism that people use when they can't accept their own short-comings; instead they "project" them on other people. So when his team points to "girly men," they are trying to draw attention away from their own candidate.

In a serious discussion like this, I probably shouldn't take another cheap shot, but--hey, it's my blog--I'll point out that last night revealed very clearly that Kerry's is much longer than Bush's (microphone).