The Bush Pledge
October 29, 2004 2:09 PM Subscribe
"I want you to stand, raise your right hands," and recite "the Bush Pledge," said Florida state Sen. Ken Pruitt. The assembled mass of about 2,000 in this Treasure Coast town about an hour north of West Palm Beach dutifully rose, arms aloft, and repeated after Pruitt: "I care about freedom and liberty. I care about my family. I care about my country. Because I care, I promise to work hard to re-elect, re-elect George W. Bush as president of the United States."
Sooooo...Can I invoke Godwin's Law on reality?
Sooooo...Can I invoke Godwin's Law on reality?
See, now, to me, that just sounds delusional. I wish someone had captured this on video because I'd love to see it on The Daily Show, though.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:20 PM on October 29, 2004
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:20 PM on October 29, 2004
I thought Godwin==Hitler? Have I missed something?
posted by Flat Feet Pete at 2:32 PM on October 29, 2004
posted by Flat Feet Pete at 2:32 PM on October 29, 2004
I think it's something about raising a hand and pledging allegiance to a mighty leader . . . . .
. . . for me to poop on.
posted by swift at 2:38 PM on October 29, 2004
. . . for me to poop on.
posted by swift at 2:38 PM on October 29, 2004
You know, real quick, there's a difference between choosing to do something, no matter how silly it is, and being forced to at gunpoint. People want to be this into re-electing Bush? It's creepy, about as creepy as the guys that paint their faces at sporting events and tomahawk chop.
posted by loquax at 2:41 PM on October 29, 2004
posted by loquax at 2:41 PM on October 29, 2004
I took another sort of Bush pledge in college, and to that I still pledge allegiance.
posted by Peter H at 2:42 PM on October 29, 2004
posted by Peter H at 2:42 PM on October 29, 2004
Speaking of tomahawk chops, I read some article the other day where dating back to 1933, the outcome of the Washington Redskins Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons football game on the Sunday before the election day has corresponded to the Presidential election: each time Washington loses, a Democrat is elected and each time they win, a Republican wins.
So, in short, go Packers.
posted by xmutex at 2:45 PM on October 29, 2004
So, in short, go Packers.
posted by xmutex at 2:45 PM on October 29, 2004
Loquax: one must necessarily come before the other, dictators don't pop up fully-formed.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:49 PM on October 29, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 2:49 PM on October 29, 2004
xmutex - you're completely wrong. It's the Persons's last *home* game that decides whether or not the incumbent wins. But yes, Kerry's cheering for Favre.
Space Coyote - Of course you're right, but equating or comparing voluntary behaviour by supporters at a political rally to any aspect of Nazi Germany is insane and really stretches the limits of good faith debate. How about this statement: all those people cheering for Kerry at the DNC were just like the crowds pulled out of schools and factories that were brainwashed into cheering for Stalin and Ceausescu.
Think about how silly this will sound in 4 days if Kerry wins.
posted by loquax at 3:00 PM on October 29, 2004
Space Coyote - Of course you're right, but equating or comparing voluntary behaviour by supporters at a political rally to any aspect of Nazi Germany is insane and really stretches the limits of good faith debate. How about this statement: all those people cheering for Kerry at the DNC were just like the crowds pulled out of schools and factories that were brainwashed into cheering for Stalin and Ceausescu.
Think about how silly this will sound in 4 days if Kerry wins.
posted by loquax at 3:00 PM on October 29, 2004
Billmon makes the comparison a little more explicitly, quoting both Bush's pledge and the SS officer pledge. It seems to me that the comparison is absurd on its face. The Bush pledge is (1) an affirmation of certain values, and (2) a commitment to re-elect a candidate based on the dictates of those value. The SS pledge is nothing more that abject fealty to Hitler. What's the comparison, exactly?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:07 PM on October 29, 2004
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:07 PM on October 29, 2004
What's the comparison, exactly?
The comparison? For fuck's sake, in America we never pledge allegiance to our goddamn Presidents. I don't care if it's FDR or Lincoln or Franklin Goddamned Pierce.
posted by solistrato at 3:23 PM on October 29, 2004
The comparison? For fuck's sake, in America we never pledge allegiance to our goddamn Presidents. I don't care if it's FDR or Lincoln or Franklin Goddamned Pierce.
posted by solistrato at 3:23 PM on October 29, 2004
And how sad is it that Bush only gets 2000 people to come to his rallies? Kerry's pulling way way more.
posted by amberglow at 3:28 PM on October 29, 2004
posted by amberglow at 3:28 PM on October 29, 2004
Read more carefully. It's not a pledge of allegiance. In fact, it says nothing about allegiance to the President, or to anybody or anything else, for that matter. It's a vow to re-elect him, not to unconditionally obey him. For fuck's sake.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:31 PM on October 29, 2004
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:31 PM on October 29, 2004
monju_bosatsu: first off, I am not the type to carelessly toss out Nazi comparisons. Generally, I have found the Bush=Hitler! meme incomparably stupid, lazy and offensive.
However. This creeps me right the fuck out.
You are right in the literal sense: it's not a pledge of allegiance to George Bush. However, it's a pledge to his cause. The Bush campaign has always been extraordinarily careful with the language they use. And given what fundamentalist Christians have expressed about both Bush and the policies he espouses, given all the evidence that Bush actually has "followers," given that the reelection strategy of the Republican Party seems to be "make sure people can't vote," given the demagogic nature of the rhetoric coming from the Republicans...it has all the makings of Bad News. Especially when Bush has explicitly stated that he and his beliefs are the same thing.
In the Billmon piece, he writes that probably not even the Rovians realize what sort of echoes they're meddling with. But the entire deal, as a whole of disparate parts, is really scary. And it is, at its core, anti-democratic.
Installing George W. Bush as president has already trashed people's faith in elections, the notion that the Supreme Court can truly be above politics, the idea of an accountable government. What else will be consigned to the trash heap to ensure that Bush gets a second term?
posted by solistrato at 3:49 PM on October 29, 2004
However. This creeps me right the fuck out.
You are right in the literal sense: it's not a pledge of allegiance to George Bush. However, it's a pledge to his cause. The Bush campaign has always been extraordinarily careful with the language they use. And given what fundamentalist Christians have expressed about both Bush and the policies he espouses, given all the evidence that Bush actually has "followers," given that the reelection strategy of the Republican Party seems to be "make sure people can't vote," given the demagogic nature of the rhetoric coming from the Republicans...it has all the makings of Bad News. Especially when Bush has explicitly stated that he and his beliefs are the same thing.
In the Billmon piece, he writes that probably not even the Rovians realize what sort of echoes they're meddling with. But the entire deal, as a whole of disparate parts, is really scary. And it is, at its core, anti-democratic.
Installing George W. Bush as president has already trashed people's faith in elections, the notion that the Supreme Court can truly be above politics, the idea of an accountable government. What else will be consigned to the trash heap to ensure that Bush gets a second term?
posted by solistrato at 3:49 PM on October 29, 2004
You know, real quick, there's a difference between choosing to do something, no matter how silly it is, and being forced to at gunpoint.
all those people at nuremberg had a gun to their heads? I did not know that.
posted by mr.marx at 4:01 PM on October 29, 2004
all those people at nuremberg had a gun to their heads? I did not know that.
posted by mr.marx at 4:01 PM on October 29, 2004
I don't see a problem with this sort of pledge. This is happening at election rallies which are a weird sort of parallel universe where one person is 100% right, the other guy is 100% wrong, America is the best it ever has been, and everyone gets to wave tiny american flags.
You should be disturbed if these pledges end up in government sponsored functions, the military, as a job requirement, or as a social greeting. In a campaign rally, it is about as important as doing a chopping motion with your arm in a football game (Go Chiefs!).
posted by pandaharma at 4:50 PM on October 29, 2004
You should be disturbed if these pledges end up in government sponsored functions, the military, as a job requirement, or as a social greeting. In a campaign rally, it is about as important as doing a chopping motion with your arm in a football game (Go Chiefs!).
posted by pandaharma at 4:50 PM on October 29, 2004
Loquax, I do not think that Bush = Hitler.
However, you said:
comparing voluntary behaviour by supporters at a political rally to any aspect of Nazi Germany is insane
Um, how is comparing voluntary behavior by supporters at a political rally in Florida to voluntary behavior by supporters at a political rally in Nazi Germany "insane"?
It actually seems quite sane to me.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:14 PM on October 29, 2004
However, you said:
comparing voluntary behaviour by supporters at a political rally to any aspect of Nazi Germany is insane
Um, how is comparing voluntary behavior by supporters at a political rally in Florida to voluntary behavior by supporters at a political rally in Nazi Germany "insane"?
It actually seems quite sane to me.
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:14 PM on October 29, 2004
See, here is the thing:
A) At this rally, people raised their right hand and pledged allegiance to George W. Bush.
B) The ironic juxtaposition with that and the custom Hitler's supporters had of raising their right hand and pledging allegiance to him strikes some of us as creepy and odd.
Does this mean that GWB is going to invade Czechoslovakia and start throwing people in concentration camps? Of course not.
However, it does mean that somebody in the Republican Party either failed history or has a tin ear for irony. And pointing that out is hardly either reductive or "insane".
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:17 PM on October 29, 2004
A) At this rally, people raised their right hand and pledged allegiance to George W. Bush.
B) The ironic juxtaposition with that and the custom Hitler's supporters had of raising their right hand and pledging allegiance to him strikes some of us as creepy and odd.
Does this mean that GWB is going to invade Czechoslovakia and start throwing people in concentration camps? Of course not.
However, it does mean that somebody in the Republican Party either failed history or has a tin ear for irony. And pointing that out is hardly either reductive or "insane".
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:17 PM on October 29, 2004
Installing George W. Bush as president has already trashed people's faith in elections, the notion that the Supreme Court can truly be above politics, the idea of an accountable government.
The soverign was accountable BEFORE Bush the lesser?
The people had faith in elections BEFORE Bush the lesser?
Perhaps the appointment of Bush the lesser was what it took for you to loose faith. For many, faith has been gone so long, they woudn't know faith if came up and bit 'em.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:52 AM on October 30, 2004
The soverign was accountable BEFORE Bush the lesser?
The people had faith in elections BEFORE Bush the lesser?
Perhaps the appointment of Bush the lesser was what it took for you to loose faith. For many, faith has been gone so long, they woudn't know faith if came up and bit 'em.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:52 AM on October 30, 2004
Does this mean that GWB is going to invade Czechoslovakia and start throwing people in concentration camps? Of course not.
Are you being ironic? All you have to do is replace Czechoslovakia with Afghanistan/Iraq and drop the final "not" and you have a true statement.
Public mass loyalty oaths to a "cause", especially one with religious overtones, is always creepy. Mix it with US politics and it's just frightening. Ask yourself why on earth it would be necessary to submit to an solemn oath ritual in order to "prove" that you will work hard on a political campaign. There is faith and there is fanaticism.
posted by sic at 1:58 AM on October 30, 2004
Are you being ironic? All you have to do is replace Czechoslovakia with Afghanistan/Iraq and drop the final "not" and you have a true statement.
Public mass loyalty oaths to a "cause", especially one with religious overtones, is always creepy. Mix it with US politics and it's just frightening. Ask yourself why on earth it would be necessary to submit to an solemn oath ritual in order to "prove" that you will work hard on a political campaign. There is faith and there is fanaticism.
posted by sic at 1:58 AM on October 30, 2004
Does this mean that GWB is going to invade Czechoslovakia and start throwing people in concentration camps? Of course not.
Really? We invaded Iraq and threw people into Abu Gharib. That's a start, right?
The Germans started with prison camps, then work camps -- then they built Treblinka and Birkenau and Sobibor.
The term we're looking at here is "Cult of Personality."
posted by eriko at 4:29 AM on October 30, 2004
Really? We invaded Iraq and threw people into Abu Gharib. That's a start, right?
The Germans started with prison camps, then work camps -- then they built Treblinka and Birkenau and Sobibor.
The term we're looking at here is "Cult of Personality."
posted by eriko at 4:29 AM on October 30, 2004
I don't see what the fuss is about, when you consider that it's not unheard of for the Bush family to get involved with fascism...
But hey, that's not gonna matter in the US, because frankly, you all seem to be asleep at the wheel, not least your "media".
If Bush wins, the USA will be well on its way to becoming a historical entity. Expect to be taking oaths of loyalty to your president, and expect people to disappear if they ask too many questions. Oh, and the middle eastern looking people won't be exterminated, they're going to be "relocated".
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
posted by tomcosgrave at 6:34 AM on October 30, 2004
But hey, that's not gonna matter in the US, because frankly, you all seem to be asleep at the wheel, not least your "media".
If Bush wins, the USA will be well on its way to becoming a historical entity. Expect to be taking oaths of loyalty to your president, and expect people to disappear if they ask too many questions. Oh, and the middle eastern looking people won't be exterminated, they're going to be "relocated".
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
posted by tomcosgrave at 6:34 AM on October 30, 2004
The sad thing is not that Bush would expect something like this from his followers. We already know he and his administration are the sorriest lot we've had since Herbert Hoover.
The sad thing is that his followers are the type of people who believe "loyalty oaths" are wonderful, and that farming their thinking out relieves their anxiety and makes them feel "safer".
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:25 AM on October 30, 2004
The sad thing is that his followers are the type of people who believe "loyalty oaths" are wonderful, and that farming their thinking out relieves their anxiety and makes them feel "safer".
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:25 AM on October 30, 2004
Its only a pledge because calling it a prayer would jump right onto the front pages.
posted by Fupped Duck at 8:43 AM on October 30, 2004
posted by Fupped Duck at 8:43 AM on October 30, 2004
You're right, whatever I said above was pretty lazily written. You *can* make whatever connections between Nuremburg and this campaign rally that you want. Maybe you'd even be right in a technical and irrelevant kind of way. Chosing to seriously entertain such thoughts, however, is nuts. If you seriously do believe that the US is on the "building concentration camps" track and that Bush is going to use his Cult of Personality to create a theocratic dictatorship, than what the hell are you doing posting to a website. Get off your ass and do something about it. Organize, mobilize, hand out pamphlets on street corners. You're not opening any eyes here, and wasting your own time.
posted by loquax at 9:24 AM on October 30, 2004
posted by loquax at 9:24 AM on October 30, 2004
The "I care about freedom and liberty" bit is especially ironic.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:56 AM on October 30, 2004
posted by five fresh fish at 9:56 AM on October 30, 2004
Loquax, if you think that pointing out the sheer idiocy, moral bankruptcy, and historical ignorance of at least some of the people who are involved in official positions in the Bush/Cheney '04 campaign is "technical and irrelevant", I don't know what you think is relevant.
Think about this for a minute. Can you imagine any sane, reasonable, intelligent, adequately informed person thinking for one nanosecond that this "Bush pledge" business was a good idea? I know I can't.
One of the reasons I am not voting for George W. Bush is that he surrounds himself with the kind of ignorant idiots who aren't clueful enough to know that, in the 21st century, getting a crowd of people to raise their right hands to swear allegiance to your leader is A Bad Idea.
I'm not reading anything more into this than that--because, as far as I'm concerned, that's plenty bad enough.
I'm Sidhedevil, and I approve this message.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:15 AM on October 30, 2004
Think about this for a minute. Can you imagine any sane, reasonable, intelligent, adequately informed person thinking for one nanosecond that this "Bush pledge" business was a good idea? I know I can't.
One of the reasons I am not voting for George W. Bush is that he surrounds himself with the kind of ignorant idiots who aren't clueful enough to know that, in the 21st century, getting a crowd of people to raise their right hands to swear allegiance to your leader is A Bad Idea.
I'm not reading anything more into this than that--because, as far as I'm concerned, that's plenty bad enough.
I'm Sidhedevil, and I approve this message.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:15 AM on October 30, 2004
Loquax, give the inspid attempts to derail through parallel a break. Fascism, like every other means of organizing the political, changes in response to its conditions of emergence. If you knew jack shit about the proto-fascist movements in Europe (and America) as far back as the late 1880s, you'd see that the parallels are there, not at the idiotic level of Hitler is to Bush analogies, but at the more fundamental level of the total mobilization of the aesthetic performance of a population.
The point is not that Bush is a Nazi, the point is that the Bush campaign is employing techniques pioneered by Nazi movements like Hitler and Mussolini. The point, you sod, is not that Bush will spark a world war and build concentration camps, because he doesn't have to do so. Unlike Hitler, Bush inherited the greatest world power, and with it unfettered capacity to shirk the law when necessary and to build his own, more American version of the camps in places like Guantanamo. The point is not that Americans will be goosestepping, the point is that there is a well-ntoed and fully justified convention that in Democracies the office of the president and the person occupying that office are in fact two distinct conceptual entities.
For the love of whatever pathetic deity you ascribe to, go out and read something. Start with history. Try Robert Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism. Finish it, and then start with some philosophy, if only to bolster your critical thinking skills. After you have read Benjamin's Theses on the Philosophy of History, Arendt's discussion of Adolf Eichmann, and maybe some of the work Zygmunt Bauman has done on ethics and the Holocaust, come back and try to animate your typing fingers with something besides the kind of reactionary and weak responses that characterize your attempt at communication. And when you've thought about your sad, pathetic lack of preparation when it comes to commenting on issues with which you have only the sparsest of familarity, go read Giorgia Agamben's Remnants of Auschwitz and see if your head is still attached.
I'm tempted to write more, but so far your responses barely warrant the minute wear and tear of my keyboard that even this brief response has inflicted.
posted by hank_14 at 11:26 AM on October 30, 2004
The point is not that Bush is a Nazi, the point is that the Bush campaign is employing techniques pioneered by Nazi movements like Hitler and Mussolini. The point, you sod, is not that Bush will spark a world war and build concentration camps, because he doesn't have to do so. Unlike Hitler, Bush inherited the greatest world power, and with it unfettered capacity to shirk the law when necessary and to build his own, more American version of the camps in places like Guantanamo. The point is not that Americans will be goosestepping, the point is that there is a well-ntoed and fully justified convention that in Democracies the office of the president and the person occupying that office are in fact two distinct conceptual entities.
For the love of whatever pathetic deity you ascribe to, go out and read something. Start with history. Try Robert Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism. Finish it, and then start with some philosophy, if only to bolster your critical thinking skills. After you have read Benjamin's Theses on the Philosophy of History, Arendt's discussion of Adolf Eichmann, and maybe some of the work Zygmunt Bauman has done on ethics and the Holocaust, come back and try to animate your typing fingers with something besides the kind of reactionary and weak responses that characterize your attempt at communication. And when you've thought about your sad, pathetic lack of preparation when it comes to commenting on issues with which you have only the sparsest of familarity, go read Giorgia Agamben's Remnants of Auschwitz and see if your head is still attached.
I'm tempted to write more, but so far your responses barely warrant the minute wear and tear of my keyboard that even this brief response has inflicted.
posted by hank_14 at 11:26 AM on October 30, 2004
Correction: That's Gorgio. Long standing typing issue. For those who like Remnants, Homo Sacer and The Coming Community are also nice, though not as nice as Remnants.
posted by hank_14 at 11:37 AM on October 30, 2004
posted by hank_14 at 11:37 AM on October 30, 2004
The sad thing is not that Bush would expect something like this from his followers. We already know he and his administration are the sorriest lot we've had since Herbert Hoover.
Oh, leave Herbert Hoover alone - his economic policy was rotten, but he was a good man. If Bush had half of Hoover's skill in postwar food relief, half the humanitarian concern for political protestors in Washington, or even half the commitment to small government, I wouldn't need the tumbling pile of tin foil hats that currently occupies my closet.
posted by yami_mcmoots at 11:49 AM on October 30, 2004
Oh, leave Herbert Hoover alone - his economic policy was rotten, but he was a good man. If Bush had half of Hoover's skill in postwar food relief, half the humanitarian concern for political protestors in Washington, or even half the commitment to small government, I wouldn't need the tumbling pile of tin foil hats that currently occupies my closet.
posted by yami_mcmoots at 11:49 AM on October 30, 2004
I think it's the creepiness factor that gets to most of it, the whole "dear leader" attitude. For instance, I just found this page: bush bronze bust. I was certain it was a joke at first (i found it by accident, searching for something else), especially since the name of the company was "fox" bronze art... but after searching through it, I think it's real. And of course, there's nothing wrong with tacky bronze sculptures if that's what you're into, but... I dunno, it seriously creeps me out that people think a currently living, in office president should be deified like this.
(sorry if this takes the discussion a little off track - I didn't think it was worth an fpp, but still wanted to share...)
posted by mdn at 12:24 PM on October 30, 2004
(sorry if this takes the discussion a little off track - I didn't think it was worth an fpp, but still wanted to share...)
posted by mdn at 12:24 PM on October 30, 2004
Hank, your passion is stimulating even if your personal attacks on me are not. Personally, I don't believe that America is headed towards Facism, I don't believe the Bush is emulating Mussolini or Hitler to any more substantial level that most politicians. I don't believe that American democracy is in substantial jeopardy. Frankly, as a Canadian citizen, I find the tactics of the Democratic party to be much closer to the Republicans (and, in effect, to the Nazis) compared to the political parties we have here. John Kerry is deified in a cult of personality to a degree that Jack Layton, Stephen Harper or Paul Martin could only dream of. Does that mean that I need to brush up on my Paxton in order to prepare for the upcoming purges under the totalitarian rule of Generalissimo Kerry?
I think worrying about what Bush supporters do at partisan rallies (no matter how weird or silly) is asinine when there are real problems with in the United States, the world at large and on every street corner. But I say again, and especially to you Hank, due to your knowledge of the history of facist movements, if you believe that Bush is emulating the evil of the past to hold on to power at any cost, you are wasting your time here. I find it difficult to respect armchair quarterbacks who scream facist from their keyboards yet do nothing to stop it. In any case, I think we have to respectfully agree to disagree about the significance of this particular event in the larger context of the election, American government and political philosophy in general.
posted by loquax at 12:45 PM on October 30, 2004
I think worrying about what Bush supporters do at partisan rallies (no matter how weird or silly) is asinine when there are real problems with in the United States, the world at large and on every street corner. But I say again, and especially to you Hank, due to your knowledge of the history of facist movements, if you believe that Bush is emulating the evil of the past to hold on to power at any cost, you are wasting your time here. I find it difficult to respect armchair quarterbacks who scream facist from their keyboards yet do nothing to stop it. In any case, I think we have to respectfully agree to disagree about the significance of this particular event in the larger context of the election, American government and political philosophy in general.
posted by loquax at 12:45 PM on October 30, 2004
Loquax, you misunderstand my point. I would never contend that we're moving towards any replication of the Brown shirts, the purges, or the gas chambers. My point is that we're already smack in the middle of it, albeit with an "it" that's a very different type of fascism. Just the difference in mass media between then and now necessitates fundamental differences between the two incarnations. And while resistance to Hitler (even at the height of his power) worked in limited and particular cases, overall resistance failed utterly to contain the groundswell of fascism in those places (Italy, Germany, Austria) where it achieved significant advances. Those places that did stop fascist movements from coalescing into a viable political party (France, Hungary) did so not so much by resisting the members of the movement but by denying them intellectual legitimacy.
See, fascism feeds off of the mobilization of a population in a way that transforms participation into an aesthetic device, a sort of cathexis. You put your faith in dear leader, and dear leader protects you. That's well and good and very classic, but a little history reveals an odd truth. Even Hitler, the most powerful fascists in History never received the majority of the popular vote. Ever. Indeed, using emergency powers, he actually postponed the elections that would have, no doubt, ended his reign. The trick is not to coerce all the people to support you all the time but rather to coerce them into the noriginary cathexis, even if it's borne out of a pure negation of everything you stand for, because that much investment into the political system as a whole confers a sense of legitimacy to the system even if you abuse the mechanisms that keep you at its head. Rove knows this better than anyone, and as an added bonus, Rove understands how television intersects with whisper campaigns to frame perceptions of candidates. So whereas Hitler mobilized support for his particular movement through the use of violence (others' violence), BushCo uses a much more masterful mix of media management, and almost obsessively so (witness the Rushmore photo op, as well as the Mission Accomplished flap). Image trumps violence in terms of agenda-setting (which is why things like WTO protests only hit our televisions when the public screen is laced with violence). It's its own sort of violence to be sure, but it's different.
So when I hear from you or anyone that I would be wasting my time discussing the techniques by which the current cabal has come to hold power, I cannot more adamantly disagree. Exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of their position is perhaps one of the most effective means by which to deal with it, not because it stops BushCo, but because hopefully it makes the continuation of those particular techniques more difficult in the future. History, philosophy, critical thinking, etc - these are more powerful weapons than the Air America rants about the evildoing of Republicans, at least in the long run, and at least imho.
My attacks were personal, and perhaps unwarranted, but this is not an issue I take likely. And as for this particular event's significance, let me simply conclude by noting that this event's significance lies precisely in the fact that it is a link in a much longer and thicker chain of behaviors, and with every link, the chain grows heavier and more difficult to cast aside.
posted by hank_14 at 1:04 PM on October 30, 2004
See, fascism feeds off of the mobilization of a population in a way that transforms participation into an aesthetic device, a sort of cathexis. You put your faith in dear leader, and dear leader protects you. That's well and good and very classic, but a little history reveals an odd truth. Even Hitler, the most powerful fascists in History never received the majority of the popular vote. Ever. Indeed, using emergency powers, he actually postponed the elections that would have, no doubt, ended his reign. The trick is not to coerce all the people to support you all the time but rather to coerce them into the noriginary cathexis, even if it's borne out of a pure negation of everything you stand for, because that much investment into the political system as a whole confers a sense of legitimacy to the system even if you abuse the mechanisms that keep you at its head. Rove knows this better than anyone, and as an added bonus, Rove understands how television intersects with whisper campaigns to frame perceptions of candidates. So whereas Hitler mobilized support for his particular movement through the use of violence (others' violence), BushCo uses a much more masterful mix of media management, and almost obsessively so (witness the Rushmore photo op, as well as the Mission Accomplished flap). Image trumps violence in terms of agenda-setting (which is why things like WTO protests only hit our televisions when the public screen is laced with violence). It's its own sort of violence to be sure, but it's different.
So when I hear from you or anyone that I would be wasting my time discussing the techniques by which the current cabal has come to hold power, I cannot more adamantly disagree. Exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of their position is perhaps one of the most effective means by which to deal with it, not because it stops BushCo, but because hopefully it makes the continuation of those particular techniques more difficult in the future. History, philosophy, critical thinking, etc - these are more powerful weapons than the Air America rants about the evildoing of Republicans, at least in the long run, and at least imho.
My attacks were personal, and perhaps unwarranted, but this is not an issue I take likely. And as for this particular event's significance, let me simply conclude by noting that this event's significance lies precisely in the fact that it is a link in a much longer and thicker chain of behaviors, and with every link, the chain grows heavier and more difficult to cast aside.
posted by hank_14 at 1:04 PM on October 30, 2004
Hank - I completely agree with you when you say that discussion and reasoned analysis is vital pretty much all of the time. I think your perspective is very knowledgeable and adds to the overall discussion. My initial response in the thread was more geared towards the glib comments and the knee jerk attitude condemning anything that is done under a Republican flag.
In terms of your opinion of Bush and his administration, I'm afraid I don't share your fears, or don't understand them completely. To make myself clearer, I'll address each of your points as I understand them.
First, do we agree on this basic definition of fascism?
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism
With respect to your point about resistance in Europe, can we also agree that conditions were uniquely ripe for such a political philosophy and such a man as Hitler to take and hold power? Whatever democratic institutions existed were not nearly as entrenched as the ones present in America today, and despite your misgivings about the media, surely freedom of information, general education of the public and independence of the press (or at least most of it) is much greater in America today than in Europe of the early 20th century.
See, fascism feeds off of the mobilization of a population in a way that transforms participation into an aesthetic device, a sort of cathexis. You put your faith in dear leader, and dear leader protects you.
Replace fascism in that sentence with any other system of political control and it remains true. Loyalty, trust and faith are prerequisites for pretty much anyone to be elected, and then to rule effectively are they not? It seems inflammatory and intellectually dishonest to tie this depiction of fascism to Bush's campaign when it applies, essentially, equally to Kerry's.
...coerce them into the noriginary cathexis, even if it's borne out of a pure negation of everything you stand for, because that much investment into the political system as a whole confers a sense of legitimacy to the system even if you abuse the mechanisms that keep you at its head.
Unless I miss your meaning, you are accusing Bush of actions he hasn't taken, and then using those actions as proof of his post-fascist methods. What emergency powers has he used to maintain power (please don't say PATRIOT)? What mechanisms has he abused? The amount of opposition to Bush, from the media, from citizens, from say, about 50% or more of the population pretty much tells me he hasn't coerced enough people, if that's what his intention was. Of course, if he cancels the elections and declares himself president for life and no-one complains, I'll agree with you.
Rove understands how television intersects with whisper campaigns to frame perceptions of candidates. So whereas Hitler mobilized support for his particular movement through the use of violence (others' violence), BushCo uses a much more masterful mix of media management, and almost obsessively so (witness the Rushmore photo op, as well as the Mission Accomplished flap). Image trumps violence in terms of agenda-setting (which is why things like WTO protests only hit our televisions when the public screen is laced with violence). It's its own sort of violence to be sure, but it's different.
Again, replace Rove with McAuliffe and does the story change? Take a look at this.
Every campaign and politician uses the media, and spins messages, and attempts to put out the best images that they can. I fail to see how Bush is *that* different from Kerry or Clinton, or Kennedy or Reagan or pretty much anyone. Comparing Rove's backdrops and photo-ops to Brownshirts is a bit much in my opinion. I see your point, however, that both Bush and Hitler wanted people to support them though.
o when I hear from you or anyone that I would be wasting my time discussing the techniques by which the current cabal has come to hold power, I cannot more adamantly disagree. Exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of their position is perhaps one of the most effective means by which to deal with it, not because it stops BushCo, but because hopefully it makes the continuation of those particular techniques more difficult in the future. History, philosophy, critical thinking, etc - these are more powerful weapons than the Air America rants about the evildoing of Republicans, at least in the long run, and at least imho.
I wholeheartedly agree (well, with most of that). At the same time I would add that it is important not to let disagreements lead to invective, and to remember to apply critical thinking to everything we hear, even if at first glance it seems to confirm our worst fears. I think that the first casualty in this campaign has been perspective, on both sides. Bush is neither the devil nor Jesus re-incarnate, just as Kerry is neither a communist nor a hero. They're politicians trying to win an election and trying their hardest. Maybe this event is a link in a long chain. If so, that chain could still break in 3 days. Even if it doesn't, a *lot* still has to happen before this Bush administration can be accused of having anything other than surface similarities to fascists of yore.
posted by loquax at 3:04 PM on October 30, 2004
In terms of your opinion of Bush and his administration, I'm afraid I don't share your fears, or don't understand them completely. To make myself clearer, I'll address each of your points as I understand them.
First, do we agree on this basic definition of fascism?
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism
With respect to your point about resistance in Europe, can we also agree that conditions were uniquely ripe for such a political philosophy and such a man as Hitler to take and hold power? Whatever democratic institutions existed were not nearly as entrenched as the ones present in America today, and despite your misgivings about the media, surely freedom of information, general education of the public and independence of the press (or at least most of it) is much greater in America today than in Europe of the early 20th century.
See, fascism feeds off of the mobilization of a population in a way that transforms participation into an aesthetic device, a sort of cathexis. You put your faith in dear leader, and dear leader protects you.
Replace fascism in that sentence with any other system of political control and it remains true. Loyalty, trust and faith are prerequisites for pretty much anyone to be elected, and then to rule effectively are they not? It seems inflammatory and intellectually dishonest to tie this depiction of fascism to Bush's campaign when it applies, essentially, equally to Kerry's.
...coerce them into the noriginary cathexis, even if it's borne out of a pure negation of everything you stand for, because that much investment into the political system as a whole confers a sense of legitimacy to the system even if you abuse the mechanisms that keep you at its head.
Unless I miss your meaning, you are accusing Bush of actions he hasn't taken, and then using those actions as proof of his post-fascist methods. What emergency powers has he used to maintain power (please don't say PATRIOT)? What mechanisms has he abused? The amount of opposition to Bush, from the media, from citizens, from say, about 50% or more of the population pretty much tells me he hasn't coerced enough people, if that's what his intention was. Of course, if he cancels the elections and declares himself president for life and no-one complains, I'll agree with you.
Rove understands how television intersects with whisper campaigns to frame perceptions of candidates. So whereas Hitler mobilized support for his particular movement through the use of violence (others' violence), BushCo uses a much more masterful mix of media management, and almost obsessively so (witness the Rushmore photo op, as well as the Mission Accomplished flap). Image trumps violence in terms of agenda-setting (which is why things like WTO protests only hit our televisions when the public screen is laced with violence). It's its own sort of violence to be sure, but it's different.
Again, replace Rove with McAuliffe and does the story change? Take a look at this.
Every campaign and politician uses the media, and spins messages, and attempts to put out the best images that they can. I fail to see how Bush is *that* different from Kerry or Clinton, or Kennedy or Reagan or pretty much anyone. Comparing Rove's backdrops and photo-ops to Brownshirts is a bit much in my opinion. I see your point, however, that both Bush and Hitler wanted people to support them though.
o when I hear from you or anyone that I would be wasting my time discussing the techniques by which the current cabal has come to hold power, I cannot more adamantly disagree. Exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of their position is perhaps one of the most effective means by which to deal with it, not because it stops BushCo, but because hopefully it makes the continuation of those particular techniques more difficult in the future. History, philosophy, critical thinking, etc - these are more powerful weapons than the Air America rants about the evildoing of Republicans, at least in the long run, and at least imho.
I wholeheartedly agree (well, with most of that). At the same time I would add that it is important not to let disagreements lead to invective, and to remember to apply critical thinking to everything we hear, even if at first glance it seems to confirm our worst fears. I think that the first casualty in this campaign has been perspective, on both sides. Bush is neither the devil nor Jesus re-incarnate, just as Kerry is neither a communist nor a hero. They're politicians trying to win an election and trying their hardest. Maybe this event is a link in a long chain. If so, that chain could still break in 3 days. Even if it doesn't, a *lot* still has to happen before this Bush administration can be accused of having anything other than surface similarities to fascists of yore.
posted by loquax at 3:04 PM on October 30, 2004
What emergency powers has he used to maintain power (please don't say PATRIOT)?
I'll say Homeland Security Threat Level and thereby answer that question. Bush's approval rating goes up when the threat level is raised, and even his approval rating on the economy, not just on terrorism.
if he cancels the elections and declares himself president for life and no-one complains, I'll agree with you
Well, considering that his party is trying to do the same thing it did four years ago and invalidate tens of thousands of Democratic votes in Florida, whether legitimately or not, in order to "win" the state again, you should also agree. It doesn't have to be Bush that does it, and insisting that it does is rather short-sighted.
Please recognize that there are forms of fascism that aren't exactly like the Third Reich.
posted by oaf at 3:54 PM on October 30, 2004
I'll say Homeland Security Threat Level and thereby answer that question. Bush's approval rating goes up when the threat level is raised, and even his approval rating on the economy, not just on terrorism.
if he cancels the elections and declares himself president for life and no-one complains, I'll agree with you
Well, considering that his party is trying to do the same thing it did four years ago and invalidate tens of thousands of Democratic votes in Florida, whether legitimately or not, in order to "win" the state again, you should also agree. It doesn't have to be Bush that does it, and insisting that it does is rather short-sighted.
Please recognize that there are forms of fascism that aren't exactly like the Third Reich.
posted by oaf at 3:54 PM on October 30, 2004
This thread is basically dead, but I do want to point out a number of trends that do parallel the state of America today and Weimar Germany before Hitler.
First, populist movements that predicate themselves on arguing against the "old" intellectual beliefs. In Germany it involved the fascists laying claim to certain celebrations of violence and the liberal disregard for all forms of monarchy, here today it involves the affirmation of good vs. evil dichotomies that force us to abandon the studied and slow structure of the UN, as well as to disparage the thoughtful cafe culture of France, or to mock Kerry's intellectual props because he speaks other languages or thinks too much.
Second, in both instances the conventional nation-state had come under serious attack. First, with world war I, a war that was theorized as impossible by the time the 20th century had stabilized what was first set out in Westphalia back in 1648. Even when the war broke out, everyone believed it would be short and brief and to the point - "civilized" countries don't destroy or do long term wars, or so they thought. Instead, it dragged on, added trench warfare and chemical weapons and bloodied the reputation of nation-states everywhere. Today, we have the terrorism of 9-11 which has fundamentally undermined the state-based approaches to security that seemed to keep the American homefront secure. Now every foreigner is a potential WMD (you should hear the local Senate races down here in Georgia), and once that admission takes place, the nation-state goes into crisis. This crisis, which is resolved through the projection of safety onto a particular leader (a purely aesthetic move), has preceded every successful fascist movement.
Third, a divided body politic. As I noted earlier, fascism gets in to and maintains power not through a total mobilization of the population to its political agenda but rather through the total mobilization of the population in terms of political involvement. In Weimar, the fascists played the communists and the liberals against the conservatives to get into power, and then crushed fascist movements in other countries and instead supported conservative regimes who would submit their authority to the single fascist party. It was a form of collusion, but it was a collusion made possible by having a deeply divided populace. Today a similar split as to party takes place, one that is particularly rabid, even as the major parties have few disagreements about the joy of killing terrorists, the importance of big business, and so on.
Again, my point is not that Bush = Hitler. My point is that the tactics being used by the Bush campaign (and to an immensely lesser capacity, the Kerry campaign) are eerily reminiscent of the sorts of things that mark fascist movements (not necessarily fascist government). Sadly there are already things that mark fascist governance independently: the recent claim of governmental authority over voting rights, the camps at Guantanamo, the eerie Bush pledge. But there are other things that we can identify that mark this very different version of fascism, a fascism that already had an economic and cultural capital dispersed at a global level: the 700+ military bases around the world, the control of large portions of the seaspace and airspace, the commercialization and use of cheap labor in the third world, the easy assignation of the American President as "leader of the free world." Etc. My concern is not that we're going to be fascist, my concern is that we are already fascist, at least latently, and that there seems to be an increasing comfort with the more explicitly historical linkages between American fascism and its obvious historical predecessors.
Agamben makes this argument particularly well. For him, camps like Auschwitz define the modern political paradigm; in a sense, we are all inside the camp. The state, by promising so much when it comes to saving our lives (from safety rules, health rules, and the culture of life to the homeland, the war on terror, and the imminent risk of catastrophic death and murder) that we submit, much as those in the camps submitted to the juridical rule of the Nazis. But what we know from studying Auschwitz is that had the interned rebelled in mass against the guards, most of the camps were so understaffed that the rebellion might well have worked. Unfortunately, that's not how it happened. Check out Borowski's semi-autobiographical This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen, where he describes his own role in facilitating the mass exterminations. He was part of a group of prisoners who believed that their survival was predicated upon the guards, and in turn participated in and helped orchestrate the daily operations of the camp. In return they were able to get better food, better goods (for if they were ever released), and life. Today we get better tax cuts, bigger cars, and safety from the evil doers. The danger for Agamben is not that we're going to be gassed; the danger is that we're so willing to be complicit for our own benefit that we refuse to see the moment at which we pass from a democracy to a more authoritarian regime.
Again, this passage doesn't happen because of a particular leader, nor does it happen through purges and adbuctions or violence, it happens through the careful and methodical regulation of our the social and the political through discourse, discourse disseminated through the genres of media coverage, the hype of the war on terror, etc. It doesn't necessarily even have to be intentional, nor is it necessarily top-down. But if Agamben is sounding a cautionary note, this Bush pledge should be ringing like a god damn fire alarm. That's my concern, and the source of my ire.
Other than that, we're not in all that much disagreement. With that, I'll let the thread die it's natural, time-induced death.
posted by hank_14 at 6:00 AM on October 31, 2004
First, populist movements that predicate themselves on arguing against the "old" intellectual beliefs. In Germany it involved the fascists laying claim to certain celebrations of violence and the liberal disregard for all forms of monarchy, here today it involves the affirmation of good vs. evil dichotomies that force us to abandon the studied and slow structure of the UN, as well as to disparage the thoughtful cafe culture of France, or to mock Kerry's intellectual props because he speaks other languages or thinks too much.
Second, in both instances the conventional nation-state had come under serious attack. First, with world war I, a war that was theorized as impossible by the time the 20th century had stabilized what was first set out in Westphalia back in 1648. Even when the war broke out, everyone believed it would be short and brief and to the point - "civilized" countries don't destroy or do long term wars, or so they thought. Instead, it dragged on, added trench warfare and chemical weapons and bloodied the reputation of nation-states everywhere. Today, we have the terrorism of 9-11 which has fundamentally undermined the state-based approaches to security that seemed to keep the American homefront secure. Now every foreigner is a potential WMD (you should hear the local Senate races down here in Georgia), and once that admission takes place, the nation-state goes into crisis. This crisis, which is resolved through the projection of safety onto a particular leader (a purely aesthetic move), has preceded every successful fascist movement.
Third, a divided body politic. As I noted earlier, fascism gets in to and maintains power not through a total mobilization of the population to its political agenda but rather through the total mobilization of the population in terms of political involvement. In Weimar, the fascists played the communists and the liberals against the conservatives to get into power, and then crushed fascist movements in other countries and instead supported conservative regimes who would submit their authority to the single fascist party. It was a form of collusion, but it was a collusion made possible by having a deeply divided populace. Today a similar split as to party takes place, one that is particularly rabid, even as the major parties have few disagreements about the joy of killing terrorists, the importance of big business, and so on.
Again, my point is not that Bush = Hitler. My point is that the tactics being used by the Bush campaign (and to an immensely lesser capacity, the Kerry campaign) are eerily reminiscent of the sorts of things that mark fascist movements (not necessarily fascist government). Sadly there are already things that mark fascist governance independently: the recent claim of governmental authority over voting rights, the camps at Guantanamo, the eerie Bush pledge. But there are other things that we can identify that mark this very different version of fascism, a fascism that already had an economic and cultural capital dispersed at a global level: the 700+ military bases around the world, the control of large portions of the seaspace and airspace, the commercialization and use of cheap labor in the third world, the easy assignation of the American President as "leader of the free world." Etc. My concern is not that we're going to be fascist, my concern is that we are already fascist, at least latently, and that there seems to be an increasing comfort with the more explicitly historical linkages between American fascism and its obvious historical predecessors.
Agamben makes this argument particularly well. For him, camps like Auschwitz define the modern political paradigm; in a sense, we are all inside the camp. The state, by promising so much when it comes to saving our lives (from safety rules, health rules, and the culture of life to the homeland, the war on terror, and the imminent risk of catastrophic death and murder) that we submit, much as those in the camps submitted to the juridical rule of the Nazis. But what we know from studying Auschwitz is that had the interned rebelled in mass against the guards, most of the camps were so understaffed that the rebellion might well have worked. Unfortunately, that's not how it happened. Check out Borowski's semi-autobiographical This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen, where he describes his own role in facilitating the mass exterminations. He was part of a group of prisoners who believed that their survival was predicated upon the guards, and in turn participated in and helped orchestrate the daily operations of the camp. In return they were able to get better food, better goods (for if they were ever released), and life. Today we get better tax cuts, bigger cars, and safety from the evil doers. The danger for Agamben is not that we're going to be gassed; the danger is that we're so willing to be complicit for our own benefit that we refuse to see the moment at which we pass from a democracy to a more authoritarian regime.
Again, this passage doesn't happen because of a particular leader, nor does it happen through purges and adbuctions or violence, it happens through the careful and methodical regulation of our the social and the political through discourse, discourse disseminated through the genres of media coverage, the hype of the war on terror, etc. It doesn't necessarily even have to be intentional, nor is it necessarily top-down. But if Agamben is sounding a cautionary note, this Bush pledge should be ringing like a god damn fire alarm. That's my concern, and the source of my ire.
Other than that, we're not in all that much disagreement. With that, I'll let the thread die it's natural, time-induced death.
posted by hank_14 at 6:00 AM on October 31, 2004
Well, sorry to post after the thread has been declared dead...
The comparison? For fuck's sake, in America we never pledge allegiance to our goddamn Presidents. I don't care if it's FDR or Lincoln or Franklin Goddamned Pierce. --solistrato
Precisely. This cult of personality thing has gotten way out of hand.
There is faith and there is fanaticism. - sic
It's the fanaticism of the followers that has me the most ooked out. But maybe that's because I live in the heart of neocon hell. Seriously, every yard but ours has an emblem of Bush. One neighbor told me yesterday that since "you folks aren't church goers, we just figured you weren't a Bush supporter". Huh? WTF? I mean, granted, I neither go to church, nor support Bush...but in these peoples minds, the two are intertwined.
If you are a good Christian, then you will vote for the new Messiah. That seems to be the message. And that's beyond creepy.
Hank_14 raises valid points about the context in which the Bush regime tactics can be evaluated, and while I find the comparisons to the rise of Nationalism to be unsettling, I think the thing that the Bush regime does so well is to mix Nationalism with Religion...and thereby creates "true believers". True belivers are dangerous people.
posted by dejah420 at 11:33 AM on October 31, 2004
The comparison? For fuck's sake, in America we never pledge allegiance to our goddamn Presidents. I don't care if it's FDR or Lincoln or Franklin Goddamned Pierce. --solistrato
Precisely. This cult of personality thing has gotten way out of hand.
There is faith and there is fanaticism. - sic
It's the fanaticism of the followers that has me the most ooked out. But maybe that's because I live in the heart of neocon hell. Seriously, every yard but ours has an emblem of Bush. One neighbor told me yesterday that since "you folks aren't church goers, we just figured you weren't a Bush supporter". Huh? WTF? I mean, granted, I neither go to church, nor support Bush...but in these peoples minds, the two are intertwined.
If you are a good Christian, then you will vote for the new Messiah. That seems to be the message. And that's beyond creepy.
Hank_14 raises valid points about the context in which the Bush regime tactics can be evaluated, and while I find the comparisons to the rise of Nationalism to be unsettling, I think the thing that the Bush regime does so well is to mix Nationalism with Religion...and thereby creates "true believers". True belivers are dangerous people.
posted by dejah420 at 11:33 AM on October 31, 2004
« Older This campaign message sponsored by ... | The world is in your hands Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by matteo at 2:17 PM on October 29, 2004