Politics (Hold Your Nose)

On the way back from dinner tonight, my wife and I were talking about politics, centering around our dismay and disgust over the behavior of the president and his cronies. I wondered if a Democratic contender could successfully and forcefully make the Republican candidate speak to the issues, and not the chimera that the current administration likes to promote. Because if the Republican side can focus and limit the conversation to terrorism, if they can produce the kind of miasma that they did before, they have a good chance of winning. That can't be allowed to happen. Win, yes, if they really are the choice of the country. But not through deceit, trickery, and misdirection, as has been the case in the past.

I wondered if it was possible that the only person who could beat the political organization of the Republicans would be one who could out-evil them -- be nastier, fouler, more willing to go to extremes -- and if so, whether that sort of person would actually be worse than the condition we have now. Is that what it would take? Or is it possible for a decent, tough, pragmatic, honorable person to win? (I don't want to know the answer. I think I already do.)

I will say this: the administration is not flat-out wrong in what they say about terrorism. We are in a serious, long-term, protracted fight against an amorphous enemy. The militant Islamic fanatics are a great and growing evil in the world, one that is slippery and slimy and hard to detect, let alone forestall.

Are all Islamics evil? Of course not. Somewhere between a few and more-than-a-few? Yes, obviously. Its not fair that all Islamics are suspect because of the actions of a minority, but we cannot ignore the common thread in the attacks which have occurred. What we have to do is remember the possibility -- even the likelihood -- that any given Islamic fundamentalist is not evil, is not a terrorist. Hating the west in general or the US in particular does not mean you are a terrorist.

The administration wants to appear successful in controlling the terrorist threat. They are finding it much, much harder to do than they thought initially. Even statements of the nature of the threat and the amount of time it will take to eradicate it -- if it can be eradicated -- are distasteful to the worthies of the administration, because Americans don't like the idea of protracted conflict. We want short, sweet, success. They can't provide that. So, boxed in, unable to admit the truth, and desperate for success, they lie. They exaggerate the scope of the threat, linking it to external events that are not demonstratably connected. They attack their critics and ignore the content of the critics statements. The goal: to exude the fog of war over themselves, their plans, their actions, and their results, and make it appear that disagreement equals subversion. Mission accomplished.

We need regime change. We need thought. We need honest dialogue, public understanding, and unity of purpose.

None of which seem to be on the administration's agenda.