Yeah, I don't disagree at all. I'd imagine we get more specific as the campaign goes on. These things just seem like pretty big rallies to me.
Maybe in those three debates. Can't wait for the "foreign policy" debate.
That's going to be fun to watch!
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Democrats parade Osama bin Laden's corpse as their proudest achievement
It's one thing for Democrats to fete Obama's tougher-than-thou national security credentials, but this ghoulish jingoism is warped
By Glenn Greenwald
One of the formative events shaping my views of the last decade's American political landscape was watching the 2004 Republican national convention. An expertly staged, supremely manipulative ritual of jingoism and leader-worship, I regarded it with an equal measure of awe and horror.
America's militarism was continuously exploited by speaker after speaker to glorify the commander-in-chief, George W Bush, as a brave and noble warrior for American Greatness. Each mention of war and killing prompted his delirious followers to erupt in the same boisterous crowd-chant: "USA, USA." Bush's opponent (and his supporters), by contrast, were vilified as soft-on-the-terrorists, troop-hating, America-despising weaklings who lacked the stomach to Keep Us Safe.
Typifying all of this was Dick Cheney's vice-presidential acceptance speech:
"As in other times, we are in a war we did not start, and have no choice but to win.
(APPLAUSE)
"Firm in our resolve, focused on our mission, and led by a superb commander-in-chief, we will prevail.
(APPLAUSE)
"The fanatics who killed some 3,000 of our fellow Americans may have thought they could attack us with impunity, because terrorists had done so previously.
"But if the killers of September 11 thought we had lost the will to defend our freedom, they did not know America, and they did not know George W Bush.
(APPLAUSE)
"From the beginning, the president made clear that the terrorists would be dealt with and that anyone who supports, protects or harbors them would be held to account.
(APPLAUSE)
"President Bush does not deal in empty threats and half measures. And his determination has sent a clear message …
"Even in this post 9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a 'more sensitive war on terror' …
(LAUGHTER)
" … as though al-Qaida will be impressed with our softer side.
(LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE)
"He declared at the Democratic convention that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked …"
(APPLAUSE)
[AUDIENCE:] "USA. USA. USA."
[CHENEY:] "But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few.
(APPLAUSE)
"George W Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people."
(APPLAUSE)
[AUDIENCE:] "USA. USA. USA."
It went on and on like that, speaker after speaker. The same chant erupted when Bush, in his acceptance speech, declared that ever since 9/11, "I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I will never relent in defending America – whatever it takes." It erupted again when he added:
"In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running-mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force."
I thought, or at least hoped, that such vulgar crowd celebrations of leader-reverence, jingoism and militarism would not soon be replicated. But on Thursday night, the final night of the Democratic party convention, it was.
It is hard to count how many times a Democratic party speaker stood up proudly to proclaim:
Osama. Bin. Laden. Is. Dead!
Almost every time Bin Laden's scalp was paraded around on its pike – all thanks to the warrior spirit and unflinching courage of our commander-in-chief – the crowd of progressives, liberals and party faithful erupted into a prolonged "USA. USA" chant.
Leading this orgy of chest-beating, we're-more-bellicose-than-you, nationalistic strutting was, ironically, the 2004 GOP's prime victim of it: Democratic Senator John Kerry. Kerry's speech exploited virtually every theme of patriotism and militarism that was used against him eight years ago, and he did so with great efficacy.
Like Obama advocates so often do, Kerry first trumpeted how faithful and loyal Obama is to the Israeli government, and held up the Israeli prime minister as the arbiter of truth and sufficient loyalty:
"'Barack Obama promised always to stand with Israel to tighten sanctions on Iran – and take nothing off the table.
"'Again and again, the other side has lied about where this president stands and what this president has done. But Prime Minister Netanyahu set the record straight – he said, our two countries have 'exactly the same policy' – 'our security cooperation is unprecedented.' When it comes to Israel, I'll take the word of Israel's prime minister over Mitt Romney any day."
Kerry, to the delight of the crowd, strongly insinuated that Romney harbors disrespect for the sacred American troops (that is: our brave men and women in uniform):
"And let me say – let me say something else – let me say something else, no nominee for president should ever fail in the midst of a war to pay tribute to our troops overseas in his acceptance speech.
(APPLAUSE)
"Mitt Romney – Mitt Romney was talking about America. They are on the front lines every day defending America and they deserve our thanks."
(APPLAUSE)
[AUDIENCE:] "USA! USA! USA!"
And, most pointedly of all, he milked the Bin Laden killing for everything it was worth, and then some:
"And after more than – after more than 10 years without justice for thousands of Americans murdered on 9/11, after Mitt Romney said it would be naive to go into Pakistan to pursue the terrorists, it took President Obama, against the advice of many, to give that order and finally rid this earth of Osama bin Laden.
(APPLAUSE)
"Ask Osama bin Laden is he is better-off now than he was four years ago."
(APPLAUSE)
Yeah: ask Osama bin Laden if he's better off – if you can find his corpse where our commander-in-chief dumped it: at the bottom of the ocean. USA! USA!
For the moment, leave aside one's views on the justness and legality of the Bin Laden killing. (For reasons adeptly set forth here by international law professor Kevin Jon Heller, I really don't understand how one can have a favorable opinion on that without actually knowing what happened, which may be the reason John Kerry is so insistent that nobody try to find out.) Whether or not one is still stimulated when thinking about that exciting raid, there is obvious meaning in how central it has become to the political identity of America and, especially, the self-esteem of the Democratic party.
It is a truly potent indicator that this grand achievement has become the greatest source of nationalistic pride. Americans once found national purpose – justification for their belief in their own exceptionalism – from inventing new life-improving technologies, or putting a man on the moon, or advancing the cause of equality, or vanquishing the mighty Nazi military machine, or enshrining unparalleled protections for core liberties in the constitution.
Now, many Americans find it in the heroic ability to hunt someone down who is in hiding, pummel his skull full of bullets even as he lay dying on the ground, and then dump his corpse into the ocean. That such actions are the new source of American pride, vindication of national greatness, was the claim made by President Obama when he first announced the killing:
"But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history."
If one wants to mount a political defense of all of this – that it is about time the Democrats gave the GOP a taste of its own medicine, that Kerry, in particular, has the right to exact vengeance, that anything is justified to win the election, etc – that's fine. I have no real quarrel with, or interest in, that perspective. In so many ways – political adeptness, party solidarity, effective exploitation of national security for political gain, media favorability, message discipline – the two parties have experienced a radical role reversal in the matter of a few short years, and it's understandable why one is happy about that if one's overarching political concern is Obama's re-election.
But the collective bloodlust on display over the last week, especially Thursday night, was nothing short of creepy. Even in those instances in which state killing is justified and necessary, it ought to be a sombre and regrettable affair (as many Democrats righteously argued when some attendees at a GOP debate cheered Texas Governor Rick Perry's touting of his execution record). Boastful, raucous, nationalistic crowd-chanting at every single mention of someone's corpse, even when that someone is Osama bin Laden, is warped.
But, more importantly, it's a depressing symbol of America's political culture. The premise seems to be that – aside from this specific corpse and the others the president has piled up – there is little else for ordinary Americans to celebrate now when it comes to the search for nationalistic achievement, purpose and greatness among their political leadership. That this dark premise appears valid is what is most disturbing of all.
UPDATE: As Gawker's pseudonymous writer Mobutu Sese Seko notes in an excellent review of the night's festivities, Joe Biden "laid it on especially thickly when it came to talking about whacking Osama bin Laden". Among other things, the vice president crowed that "Obama is our president because he always has the courage to make the tough decisions." Of the kill order: "He said, do it – and justice was done!" And then:
"And he also knew – he also knew the message we had to send around the world: if you attack innocent Americans, we will follow you to the end of the earth.
(CHEERS, APPLAUSE.)
"Look …"
[AUDIENCE:] "USA! USA! USA! USA!"
He further suggests that it may not be "justice" that is achieved by "a double-tap to the brain of a sclerotic masturbating whitehair and his family, in the dead of night, by trained killers." Rather, he argues, "justice" likely entails – following the Allied and Israeli example of how Nazi war criminals were treated – a trial, with evidence of guilt shown to the world, and a deliberative punishment then meted out.
Again, though, regardless of one's views on that question, there is a world of difference between approving of the Bin Laden hit, on the one hand, and gathering together to chant nationalistic slogans and feel pulsating crowd-based power from it, on the other.
UPDATE II: I believe I just saw one of the best videos ever: Gawker's John Cook spent several days asking numerous Democratic luminaries at the convention about Obama's kill list and whether they would trust Mitt Romney to decide which Americans should be extra-judicially assassinated. Other than Bill Press, none reacted well, and it is really worth watching.
What are you talking about? Foreign policy matters a great deal.
And by the way, when the President authorized drone strikes that killed 3 U.S. citizens within 2 weeks, has given himself the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process, and hold them indefinitely, then I think all these things _should_ matter. Not just the economy. Defense spending has been taking a drastic toll on our country, and our aggressive foreign policy is what has helped contribute to our weakened economic state.
Not that there will be much difference between a Romney and Obama foreign policy. Obama's policies has taken some of the most hawkish ideas from the Bush administration, such as continuing indiscriminate drone strikes, the secrecy of the administration and persecution of whistleblowers, destroying any notion of due process in so many different ways. I mean, how someone who considers him or herself a 'liberal' can vote for Obama is beyond me.
What are you talking about? Foreign policy matters a great deal.
And by the way, when the President authorized drone strikes that killed 3 U.S. citizens within 2 weeks, has given himself the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process, and hold them indefinitely, then I think all these things _should_ matter. Not just the economy. Defense spending has been taking a drastic toll on our country, and our aggressive foreign policy is what has helped contribute to our weakened economic state.
Not that there will be much difference between a Romney and Obama foreign policy. Obama's policies has taken some of the most hawkish ideas from the Bush administration, such as continuing indiscriminate drone strikes, the secrecy of the administration and persecution of whistleblowers, destroying any notion of due process in so many different ways. I mean, how someone who considers him or herself a 'liberal' can vote for Obama is beyond me.
well we see foreign policy matters a lot to you and you see a connection that exists
many do not keep up on it all nor see that connection
lot's of Americans care about their own bills, their own empty table,
their own job or lack of one, their own family ...
not what goes on around the world
What are you talking about? Foreign policy matters a great deal.
And by the way, when the President authorized drone strikes that killed 3 U.S. citizens within 2 weeks, has given himself the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process, and hold them indefinitely, then I think all these things _should_ matter. Not just the economy. Defense spending has been taking a drastic toll on our country, and our aggressive foreign policy is what has helped contribute to our weakened economic state.
Not that there will be much difference between a Romney and Obama foreign policy. Obama's policies has taken some of the most hawkish ideas from the Bush administration, such as continuing indiscriminate drone strikes, the secrecy of the administration and persecution of whistleblowers, destroying any notion of due process in so many different ways. I mean, how someone who considers him or herself a 'liberal' can vote for Obama is beyond me.
well we see foreign policy matters a lot to you and you see a connection that exists
many do not keep up on it all nor see that connection
lot's of Americans care about their own bills, their own empty table,
their own job or lack of one, their own family ...
not what goes on around the world
Ok, Americans can keep focused on their own jobs and their own families, but when another 9/11 happens, we should not sit here and think "But WHY DO THEY HATE US?!" The answer is clear. We can't be living in the world's only superpower and claim that we have every right to only be focused on ourselves, when there has been overwhelming support for Obama's drone strikes in the polls, there has been silence over the recent erosion of our civil rights as far as Obama has been concerned, when it comes to assassinating U.S. citizens abroad without due process, relentless wireless tapping, and ultimate secrecy regarding all these so-called "national security" programs.
For the record, the United States became a superpower in the early half of the twentieth century when it had a less aggressive foreign policy and was not engaging in constant warfare abroad. During that period, it was building its economy, much like what China is doing now. If people don't think foreign policy and economy is completely related then they are delusional.
What are you talking about? Foreign policy matters a great deal.
And by the way, when the President authorized drone strikes that killed 3 U.S. citizens within 2 weeks, has given himself the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process, and hold them indefinitely, then I think all these things _should_ matter. Not just the economy. Defense spending has been taking a drastic toll on our country, and our aggressive foreign policy is what has helped contribute to our weakened economic state.
Not that there will be much difference between a Romney and Obama foreign policy. Obama's policies has taken some of the most hawkish ideas from the Bush administration, such as continuing indiscriminate drone strikes, the secrecy of the administration and persecution of whistleblowers, destroying any notion of due process in so many different ways. I mean, how someone who considers him or herself a 'liberal' can vote for Obama is beyond me.
well we see foreign policy matters a lot to you and you see a connection that exists
many do not keep up on it all nor see that connection
lot's of Americans care about their own bills, their own empty table,
their own job or lack of one, their own family ...
not what goes on around the world
Ok, Americans can keep focused on their own jobs and their own families, but when another 9/11 happens, we should not sit here and think "But WHY DO THEY HATE US?!" The answer is clear. We can't be living in the world's only superpower and claim that we have every right to only be focused on ourselves, when there has been overwhelming support for Obama's drone strikes in the polls, there has been silence over the recent erosion of our civil rights as far as Obama has been concerned, when it comes to assassinating U.S. citizens abroad without due process, relentless wireless tapping, and ultimate secrecy regarding all these so-called "national security" programs.
For the record, the United States became a superpower in the early half of the twentieth century when it had a less aggressive foreign policy and was not engaging in constant warfare abroad. During that period, it was building its economy, much like what China is doing now. If people don't think foreign policy and economy is completely related then they are delusional.
Well then, if you say so. Let's just cancel the foreign policy debate and talk about Romney is going to add thousands of jobs with unnecessary military spending that the Pentagon didn't even ask for. I guess this is what they mean by small government.
I will make a mental note that foreign policy is not an issue worth discussing in electing the Commander in Chief for the next four years. Thanks!
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Well then, if you say so. Let's just cancel the foreign policy debate and talk about Romney is going to add thousands of jobs with unnecessary military spending that the Pentagon didn't even ask for. I guess this is what they mean by small government.
I will make a mental note that foreign policy is not an issue worth discussing in electing the Commander in Chief for the next four years. Thanks!
I didn't say it wasn't important I said it is not important to a lot of voters,
that between the two major issues, our economy vs our foreign policies,
many would rather hear exactly what is to be done for them, here at home
and our economy mess. Romney may look more attractive there.
Well then, if you say so. Let's just cancel the foreign policy debate and talk about Romney is going to add thousands of jobs with unnecessary military spending that the Pentagon didn't even ask for. I guess this is what they mean by small government.
I will make a mental note that foreign policy is not an issue worth discussing in electing the Commander in Chief for the next four years. Thanks!
I didn't say it wasn't important I said it is not important to a lot of voters,
that between the two major issues, our economy vs our foreign policies,
many would rather hear exactly what is to be done for them, here at home
and our economy mess. Romney may look more attractive there.
You basically said - this isn't important (or not nearly as important as the economy), stop talking about it. Voters can decide what's important on their own, without you dictating it for them.
Other thing I'd say is that, for practical purposes, a president has much, much more impact on foreign policy than on the economy. The economy for the most part is a series of booms and busts and most people, including the president, just reap the rewards or sow the punishment.
Still the economy's current mediocrity is much better than the ongoing collapse of January 2009.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Well then, if you say so. Let's just cancel the foreign policy debate and talk about Romney is going to add thousands of jobs with unnecessary military spending that the Pentagon didn't even ask for. I guess this is what they mean by small government.
I will make a mental note that foreign policy is not an issue worth discussing in electing the Commander in Chief for the next four years. Thanks!
I didn't say it wasn't important I said it is not important to a lot of voters,
that between the two major issues, our economy vs our foreign policies,
many would rather hear exactly what is to be done for them, here at home
and our economy mess. Romney may look more attractive there.
You basically said - this isn't important (or not nearly as important as the economy), stop talking about it. Voters can decide what's important on their own, without you dictating it for them.
Other thing I'd say is that, for practical purposes, a president has much, much more impact on foreign policy than on the economy. The economy for the most part is a series of booms and busts and most people, including the president, just reap the rewards or sow the punishment.
Still the economy's current mediocrity is much better than the ongoing collapse of January 2009.
funny stuff dictating thats a new one now I'm a dictator
good lord it's an opinion for cryin out loud
And gee it's an opinion that's all over the news channels too, if you have noticed the economy is the issue, I swear I didn't make that up or dictate others
to follow the word
the Democrats don't seem to want to notice that though ... I've noticed that the economy is the issue
it's why we hear the question at every turn...
"are YOU better off than four years ago"?
not are the Iraqi's better off than four year ago :fp:
in my opinion, there we go, average peeps in America want to know whats' in it for them...
common sense, it only makes sense, why Romney might look attractive.
And our President might look like he failed.
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrpeVvvDL14
I liked the robot best
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
our economy is the issue
Democrats parade Osama bin Laden's corpse as their proudest achievement
It's one thing for Democrats to fete Obama's tougher-than-thou national security credentials, but this ghoulish jingoism is warped
By Glenn Greenwald
One of the formative events shaping my views of the last decade's American political landscape was watching the 2004 Republican national convention. An expertly staged, supremely manipulative ritual of jingoism and leader-worship, I regarded it with an equal measure of awe and horror.
America's militarism was continuously exploited by speaker after speaker to glorify the commander-in-chief, George W Bush, as a brave and noble warrior for American Greatness. Each mention of war and killing prompted his delirious followers to erupt in the same boisterous crowd-chant: "USA, USA." Bush's opponent (and his supporters), by contrast, were vilified as soft-on-the-terrorists, troop-hating, America-despising weaklings who lacked the stomach to Keep Us Safe.
Typifying all of this was Dick Cheney's vice-presidential acceptance speech:
"As in other times, we are in a war we did not start, and have no choice but to win.
(APPLAUSE)
"Firm in our resolve, focused on our mission, and led by a superb commander-in-chief, we will prevail.
(APPLAUSE)
"The fanatics who killed some 3,000 of our fellow Americans may have thought they could attack us with impunity, because terrorists had done so previously.
"But if the killers of September 11 thought we had lost the will to defend our freedom, they did not know America, and they did not know George W Bush.
(APPLAUSE)
"From the beginning, the president made clear that the terrorists would be dealt with and that anyone who supports, protects or harbors them would be held to account.
(APPLAUSE)
"President Bush does not deal in empty threats and half measures. And his determination has sent a clear message …
"Even in this post 9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a 'more sensitive war on terror' …
(LAUGHTER)
" … as though al-Qaida will be impressed with our softer side.
(LAUGHTER, APPLAUSE)
"He declared at the Democratic convention that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked …"
(APPLAUSE)
[AUDIENCE:] "USA. USA. USA."
[CHENEY:] "But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few.
(APPLAUSE)
"George W Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people."
(APPLAUSE)
[AUDIENCE:] "USA. USA. USA."
It went on and on like that, speaker after speaker. The same chant erupted when Bush, in his acceptance speech, declared that ever since 9/11, "I wake up every morning thinking about how to better protect our country. I will never relent in defending America – whatever it takes." It erupted again when he added:
"In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running-mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force."
I thought, or at least hoped, that such vulgar crowd celebrations of leader-reverence, jingoism and militarism would not soon be replicated. But on Thursday night, the final night of the Democratic party convention, it was.
It is hard to count how many times a Democratic party speaker stood up proudly to proclaim:
Osama. Bin. Laden. Is. Dead!
Almost every time Bin Laden's scalp was paraded around on its pike – all thanks to the warrior spirit and unflinching courage of our commander-in-chief – the crowd of progressives, liberals and party faithful erupted into a prolonged "USA. USA" chant.
Leading this orgy of chest-beating, we're-more-bellicose-than-you, nationalistic strutting was, ironically, the 2004 GOP's prime victim of it: Democratic Senator John Kerry. Kerry's speech exploited virtually every theme of patriotism and militarism that was used against him eight years ago, and he did so with great efficacy.
Like Obama advocates so often do, Kerry first trumpeted how faithful and loyal Obama is to the Israeli government, and held up the Israeli prime minister as the arbiter of truth and sufficient loyalty:
"'Barack Obama promised always to stand with Israel to tighten sanctions on Iran – and take nothing off the table.
"'Again and again, the other side has lied about where this president stands and what this president has done. But Prime Minister Netanyahu set the record straight – he said, our two countries have 'exactly the same policy' – 'our security cooperation is unprecedented.' When it comes to Israel, I'll take the word of Israel's prime minister over Mitt Romney any day."
Kerry, to the delight of the crowd, strongly insinuated that Romney harbors disrespect for the sacred American troops (that is: our brave men and women in uniform):
"And let me say – let me say something else – let me say something else, no nominee for president should ever fail in the midst of a war to pay tribute to our troops overseas in his acceptance speech.
(APPLAUSE)
"Mitt Romney – Mitt Romney was talking about America. They are on the front lines every day defending America and they deserve our thanks."
(APPLAUSE)
[AUDIENCE:] "USA! USA! USA!"
And, most pointedly of all, he milked the Bin Laden killing for everything it was worth, and then some:
"And after more than – after more than 10 years without justice for thousands of Americans murdered on 9/11, after Mitt Romney said it would be naive to go into Pakistan to pursue the terrorists, it took President Obama, against the advice of many, to give that order and finally rid this earth of Osama bin Laden.
(APPLAUSE)
"Ask Osama bin Laden is he is better-off now than he was four years ago."
(APPLAUSE)
Yeah: ask Osama bin Laden if he's better off – if you can find his corpse where our commander-in-chief dumped it: at the bottom of the ocean. USA! USA!
For the moment, leave aside one's views on the justness and legality of the Bin Laden killing. (For reasons adeptly set forth here by international law professor Kevin Jon Heller, I really don't understand how one can have a favorable opinion on that without actually knowing what happened, which may be the reason John Kerry is so insistent that nobody try to find out.) Whether or not one is still stimulated when thinking about that exciting raid, there is obvious meaning in how central it has become to the political identity of America and, especially, the self-esteem of the Democratic party.
It is a truly potent indicator that this grand achievement has become the greatest source of nationalistic pride. Americans once found national purpose – justification for their belief in their own exceptionalism – from inventing new life-improving technologies, or putting a man on the moon, or advancing the cause of equality, or vanquishing the mighty Nazi military machine, or enshrining unparalleled protections for core liberties in the constitution.
Now, many Americans find it in the heroic ability to hunt someone down who is in hiding, pummel his skull full of bullets even as he lay dying on the ground, and then dump his corpse into the ocean. That such actions are the new source of American pride, vindication of national greatness, was the claim made by President Obama when he first announced the killing:
"But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history."
If one wants to mount a political defense of all of this – that it is about time the Democrats gave the GOP a taste of its own medicine, that Kerry, in particular, has the right to exact vengeance, that anything is justified to win the election, etc – that's fine. I have no real quarrel with, or interest in, that perspective. In so many ways – political adeptness, party solidarity, effective exploitation of national security for political gain, media favorability, message discipline – the two parties have experienced a radical role reversal in the matter of a few short years, and it's understandable why one is happy about that if one's overarching political concern is Obama's re-election.
But the collective bloodlust on display over the last week, especially Thursday night, was nothing short of creepy. Even in those instances in which state killing is justified and necessary, it ought to be a sombre and regrettable affair (as many Democrats righteously argued when some attendees at a GOP debate cheered Texas Governor Rick Perry's touting of his execution record). Boastful, raucous, nationalistic crowd-chanting at every single mention of someone's corpse, even when that someone is Osama bin Laden, is warped.
But, more importantly, it's a depressing symbol of America's political culture. The premise seems to be that – aside from this specific corpse and the others the president has piled up – there is little else for ordinary Americans to celebrate now when it comes to the search for nationalistic achievement, purpose and greatness among their political leadership. That this dark premise appears valid is what is most disturbing of all.
UPDATE: As Gawker's pseudonymous writer Mobutu Sese Seko notes in an excellent review of the night's festivities, Joe Biden "laid it on especially thickly when it came to talking about whacking Osama bin Laden". Among other things, the vice president crowed that "Obama is our president because he always has the courage to make the tough decisions." Of the kill order: "He said, do it – and justice was done!" And then:
"And he also knew – he also knew the message we had to send around the world: if you attack innocent Americans, we will follow you to the end of the earth.
(CHEERS, APPLAUSE.)
"Look …"
[AUDIENCE:] "USA! USA! USA! USA!"
He further suggests that it may not be "justice" that is achieved by "a double-tap to the brain of a sclerotic masturbating whitehair and his family, in the dead of night, by trained killers." Rather, he argues, "justice" likely entails – following the Allied and Israeli example of how Nazi war criminals were treated – a trial, with evidence of guilt shown to the world, and a deliberative punishment then meted out.
Again, though, regardless of one's views on that question, there is a world of difference between approving of the Bin Laden hit, on the one hand, and gathering together to chant nationalistic slogans and feel pulsating crowd-based power from it, on the other.
UPDATE II: I believe I just saw one of the best videos ever: Gawker's John Cook spent several days asking numerous Democratic luminaries at the convention about Obama's kill list and whether they would trust Mitt Romney to decide which Americans should be extra-judicially assassinated. Other than Bill Press, none reacted well, and it is really worth watching.
And by the way, when the President authorized drone strikes that killed 3 U.S. citizens within 2 weeks, has given himself the authority to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process, and hold them indefinitely, then I think all these things _should_ matter. Not just the economy. Defense spending has been taking a drastic toll on our country, and our aggressive foreign policy is what has helped contribute to our weakened economic state.
Not that there will be much difference between a Romney and Obama foreign policy. Obama's policies has taken some of the most hawkish ideas from the Bush administration, such as continuing indiscriminate drone strikes, the secrecy of the administration and persecution of whistleblowers, destroying any notion of due process in so many different ways. I mean, how someone who considers him or herself a 'liberal' can vote for Obama is beyond me.
many do not keep up on it all nor see that connection
lot's of Americans care about their own bills, their own empty table,
their own job or lack of one, their own family ...
not what goes on around the world
For the record, the United States became a superpower in the early half of the twentieth century when it had a less aggressive foreign policy and was not engaging in constant warfare abroad. During that period, it was building its economy, much like what China is doing now. If people don't think foreign policy and economy is completely related then they are delusional.
Well then, if you say so. Let's just cancel the foreign policy debate and talk about Romney is going to add thousands of jobs with unnecessary military spending that the Pentagon didn't even ask for. I guess this is what they mean by small government.
I will make a mental note that foreign policy is not an issue worth discussing in electing the Commander in Chief for the next four years. Thanks!
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
that between the two major issues, our economy vs our foreign policies,
many would rather hear exactly what is to be done for them, here at home
and our economy mess. Romney may look more attractive there.
You basically said - this isn't important (or not nearly as important as the economy), stop talking about it. Voters can decide what's important on their own, without you dictating it for them.
Other thing I'd say is that, for practical purposes, a president has much, much more impact on foreign policy than on the economy. The economy for the most part is a series of booms and busts and most people, including the president, just reap the rewards or sow the punishment.
Still the economy's current mediocrity is much better than the ongoing collapse of January 2009.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
good lord it's an opinion for cryin out loud
And gee it's an opinion that's all over the news channels too, if you have noticed
the economy is the issue, I swear I didn't make that up or dictate others
to follow the word
the Democrats don't seem to want to notice that though ... I've noticed
that the economy is the issue
it's why we hear the question at every turn...
"are YOU better off than four years ago"?
not are the Iraqi's better off than four year ago :fp:
in my opinion, there we go, average peeps in America want to know whats' in it for them...
common sense, it only makes sense, why Romney might look attractive.
And our President might look like he failed.