I-deology of Winning

Another year has passed and we witnessed again our president trivialize the institutions of the presidency with another meaningless State of the Union speech which contained nary a bold policy to change this country for the better. In foreign policy the dramatic shift was made years ago in 2002, and now it nears fruition as the President intensified his rhetoric towards Iran. But somethig else loomed in his speech when the discussion turned towards his thoughts on escalating America's military prescence in Iraq.

It is something a casual listener of the news will also hear from conservatives, pundits, and other media types. It is an idea that has little relation to the truth, or what is the right path in foreign affairs, yet it fuels America's current decision-making process.

Let's flash back four years ago, to the buildup to the invasion of Iraq. Half the case for attacking was that America would triumphantly prevail. It was the underlying fact that allowed Americans the convenience of ignoring the merits and ignoble justifications for war. The early boasts of our leaders were widely accepted as true and now our political elites hide their embarassment by demanding they be allowed to increase our committment in this war that is not ours to win. It really was not ours to win, it is history, it is culture, it is animosity bore out of our support for brutality of one man during one period of time, and then our change of heart.

This tragedy that is Iraq is America's fault, but tragedy is never described by its winners and losers, but solely by the depth of its horror and sorrow. In our national debate its only mention today is that it will be worse if we do not WIN. It appears now, that in the media, to our political elites, and to our president and his ilk, that our only moral failure in Iraq is that it is not a definitive victory. The howling criticism from so many political elites, cried that we were sold a fake victory. So now our president, pleads to allow him another chance to win it all. A win will undo all the evil we have seen.

It is this mantra, "We must win." or rather "We will win." It enables our failure, furthers our country's descent into tyranny, continues the incoherence of thought among our highest decision-makers. We simply must not lose, even if there is nothing here to win or lose. In American politics we are obsessed with the word and it destroys the fabric of our republic. A win in Iraq will not end any conflict. At best a win will slow the conflict, pacify the tensions for period of time so that America can have its "win". But it will never soothe the hatred, undo the devastation, or heal the wounds wrought by our invasion.

But this thinking is easily perpetuated in our culture. In America winning is an ideology in itself. It cuts across party lines, religious belief. Americans are always bent on winning. We are trained from the beginning of our lives that winning is our proof of self-worth. Many Americans proclaim moderation in political thought because it is a winner. It is thought worthy and virtuous to be in the middle because it wins and because to far to one side or another loses. But the only thing that is worthy is the truth. And the truth is that moderation of politics has no inherent worth when both sides are wrong. It is in America today a virtue to be in the middle of what is wrong.

The leadership of the Democratic Party is so high off winning that it merely bases the merit of its candidates on their ability to win. Hillary Clinton is the ultimate believer in this gospel of winning. Her defining statement of her candidacy was that she was "in it to win it." How embarassing to see our candidate be solely motivated to explain her campaign to her supporters that she is merely there to win. It is obvious statement demonstrated by the act of declaring. This stand alone statement shows the inherent lack of her worthiness to be president. Yet it is something the media did not criticize or lambast for it ridiculousness, because they perpetuate this game that is to be "won."

Our media apparently lacks the ability to think critically or deductively. It merely induces that by winning, something is true. If your idea or your wishes are not winners, be it the electoral box, in the marketplace or otherwise, then whatever fact you have said, or whatever proof you might present, whatever truth you might encounter, it is not real. Throughout American history, one sees examples where winning decides the truth.

But really, isn't that history? It is a series of interpretations by the winners of conflicts and competitions? America is only addicted to its sweet poison so long as it wins. It is one that many civilizations have sipped throughout our known human existence, and its bitter aftertaste always leaves tragic consequence.

Winning is the ideology of America and its inhabitants. Our chattering and political classes look to winning as the moral guidance of our country's decisions, it shows the probity of policy. And that sad fact is what drives this nation and this world into greater tragedy.

Cognitive Dissonance: When Talking Points No Longer Match Reality

There are many times when I find myself in a conversation with Republicans and invariably I am amazed by how the rhetoric that they use is in no way, shape or form connected to the things that they actually believe. I will now look at some of the major ones and how they prove that, in order to be a a movement conservative, you have to abandon all intellectual honesty.

We are the party of smaller government. This is the one that I hear the most. Probably the funniest example of this was when Rep. Tom Tancredo, the anti-immigration zealot from Colorado (Never mind the fact that his grandparents came to this country from Italy.) was complaining about the lack of "limited government conservatives" who want "to keep government off the people's back" such as himself in the 2008 Presidential field. When your one issue is trying to keep all of those nasty furriners out of America, isn't that the definition of using the government to get on the backs of millions of people?

But, no, this was not enough. Congressman Tancredo then went on to explain that small-government conservatives want to "protect unborn life" and make sure marriage is recognized by the government as "a sacred institution for one man and woman." Can someone please explain to me how this can be small or limited government? If you want to talk spending, under George W. Bush and the Republican Congress, spending increased by a higher percentage in six years than in all eight years of the Clinton Adminstration, with or without defense spending as a factor.

We are the party of fiscal responsibility. This one is easily rebutted. The last time a Republican President balanced the budget (and the only time since World War II) was Eisenhower in 1958. Since World War II, Democrats have accomplished this feat eight times (three under Truman, one under Johnson and four under Clinton), this despite having 28 years in the White House compared to 34 for the GOP.

We support the troops. As a veteran, this is one that highly offends me. In 2003, there was a vote on the House floor to provide a $1500 bonus to every veteran of Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo as part of a war appropriations bill. The amendment was killed 213-213, without a single Democrat voting against us. One of those who cast this despicable vote was Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), who then had the gall to write letters a few weeks later talking about all of the good things that she was doing for our troops and for national security. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

We are spreading democracy and freedom. You don't hear this one as much lately, but a couple of years ago this one was highly in vogue. On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart even ran a counter to show the number of times President Bush uttered the words "freedom" and "democracy" in his 2005 inaugural. However, you can't say that your goal is to spread democracy all across the world while supporting Realpolitik when economic and military interests are at stake, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This goes back to 1953 when the CIA took out the democractically-elected Mossadeq government in Iran after it nationalized Persian oil, on to removing democratically elected Marxists in the Congo in 1959 and Chile in 1973, to our present-day dealings in the Middle East, when groups that we don't like such as Hamas or individuals such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad win elections. Democracy means accepting the choices of the people, not throwing a hissyfit when you lose.

Democrats are the angry party. If you think that the GOP has a point, mention Bill Clinton's name in a room full of Republicans and watch their faces and listen to the crazy conspiracy theories that are sure to follow.

We believe in the sanctity of marriage. This one is usually in terms of support for a Constitutional ban on gay marriage. However, if the Republican Party is so committed to "preserving" marriage, why don't they include a ban on divorce in their amendment? After all, Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, but he didn't like divorce. However, this belief in the sanctity of marriage had its limits for heterosexual couples as well. Even though Michael Schiavo was Terri Schiavo's next of kin and had legal standing as her husband, and the State of Florida repeatedly ruled that it was his decision (see "local government"), the Republican Congress insisted on taking the side of Terri Schiavo's parents.

We believe in a government that is closer to the people. They say this one because they know that the phrase "states' rights" brings up connotations of white Southerners using their "states' rights" to discriminate against and enslave black people. However, as soon as a state does something that the federal Republicans disagree with, such as Oregon's assisted suicide law, which was approved by the people of the state twice, they insist on using the federal government to override state laws.

What do we do with people who are so intellectually dishonest in their talking points? What I usually do is take those talking points head on. Usually, the Republican in question will deny the falsehood. (One time, someone even told me "Of course, Republicans believe in smaller government. How dare you say that?") However, there are times when you meet someone who is honest who will admit that their talking point is wrong. It is only when we let them know that we will not stand for this dishonesty that we can have an honest political discourse in America.

Bush to America: Unpopular war got you down? No problem! I've got an domestic agenda that you'll just love!

Ever since the '06 elections confirmed that Americans are really tired of the Iraq war, (Why can't they understand we were attacked!) our beloved Messiah...I mean President Bush... has been trying to figure out what to do for two more years that will make people not hate him so. While trying to salvage his war through escalation...I mean..."surge", Bush has decided to focus on domestic issues.

From the AP:

The president is expected to address:
• Health care: Bush will propose a tax deduction of $7,500 for individuals and $15,000 for families regardless of whether they buy their own health insurance or receive medical coverage at work. Health care insurance would be considered taxable income, and people with more generous policies could face tax increases unless they change plans. The administration says its plan will help people who buy insurance individually rather than through their employers. The administration says the tax deductions will allow more Americans to buy insurance.

• Energy: Bush is expected to call for a sharp escalation of corn-based ethanol as a gasoline blend. He also may seek the power to raise fuel economy standards for passenger cars, probably as part of a plan to offer financial incentives for increasing alternative fuels. The auto industry has resisted upgraded mileage requirements and stressed a need for vehicles fueled by alternatives such as ethanol, diesel and eventually hydrogen. Bush asked for the same authority last year. Some Democrats worry the plan would give transportation officials overly broad authority to change the system and note the measure would not have any impact on current gas prices.

• Education: Bush will push for Congress to renew his education law, No Child Left Behind, which expires this year. Democrats have already signaled their intention to work with him but will expect him to go along with increases in spending. The law pushes schools that receive federal poverty aid to show yearly progress or face sanctions, including allowing students to transfer or demand extra tutoring.

Wow! I think these issues are going to cement the Bush legacy. All of these stands address some basic concerns of Americans, and do nothing to give in to the Communist...I mean Democrat party.

Let's review:

Health insurance a problem? Not anymore! We have a tax deduction for you. Never mind that Democratic talk that the system is in need of overhaul and healthcare industry is out of control. This tax deduction should be able to fix the problem.

Energy independence? Ha! Got that figured out. Ethanol has been around forever and we will just use it more. Let's not call on changing the way we live or force the auto industry to make better cars. Bush already said we are addicted to oil, this sounds like the solution. An energy source that takes more energy to produce than it creates. Yeah that's the ticket. Plus maybe people will forget that Bush called for a hydrogen car back in '03.

Education? Easy, just keep doing what we are doing. No Child Left Behind is working. Bush never really funded it and has basically reduced education to math and reading. That's all we need. People need to just know how to do math and read about what a great leader Bush has been. This policy really is working out.

Notice he isn't going to showcase his courageous stands on stem cell research, Social Security, or record deficits. No matter, he does have to leave a little room to defend his bold move to escalate...I mean utilize the "surge" option... in Iraq.

No president has ever gone without a little adversity. Looks like that is all we are facing right not. I have a good feeling about the State of the Union if I do say so myself.

Randolph Clark signing off... I'm off to join the ole boys for a good cigar and scotch before we shoot some farm raised quail tomorrow morning.