Bush and the Primacy of the Political
September 14th, 2007 Posted in Of InterestBush’s speech is also a typical reflection of his utter disregard for the truth. That Petraeus’ conclusions were predestined we all understand. (I’ve been hearing so much about “Petraeus and Crocker” that I wondered if they finally sent the Miami Vice to Iraq to put things right). Again, the Surge is designed to help Bush save face until he can pass the Iraq problem on to others, after which any failure can be blamed on political opponents. This is the real meaning of Iraq as an “engagement that extends beyond my presidency”–an unintentionally ironic remark to say the least. How brazen it is to ask us to take that farce seriously!
I think it’s easy to lose site of how damaging such dishonest speeches can be: dishonesty ceases to register. The truth is no longer a “moral value”. Instead of criticizing the dog and pony show for what it is–a show–the press take it seriously entirely on its own terms. They are willing to accept patently false premises–the a temporary, localized surge could have anything to do with the fate of Iraq–for the opportunity to debate its “effectiveness”. It’s an assault on basic critical thinking and common sense, but it’s also an assault on respect for the truth. Bush can make such a speech because many Americans have lost the instinct to recoil from such bullshit. They are hardly aware of it; and that lack of awareness–of a basic capacity to think about the truth–is highly evident even among educated journalists.
Chalk this up to the primacy of the political: it’s one thing for Bush’s right wing worshipers feel like they understand him and his intentions; that he is a good man; that he respects “moral values”; that he is their strong charismatic leader. That just makes them gullible. But the press are gullible for the opposite reason: so cynical that they cease to expect the truth, and it no longer occurs to them to protest in the face of outrageous lies by those in power. That, after all, would destroy air of neutrality. “Neutrality” is the loophole through which any political manipulator can walk: invent a lie, no matter how absurd, and put it in the mouth of someone in a position of political power. As its documenters, the press naturally respect power; add to that respect the self-conception of fairness, and you have a “debate”–talking heads who “analyze” at length positions that rest on premises that no lone believes are true. They can look rationale as long as the framing premises are never touched. Inside that framework, everything is logical and consistent. Outside, you wonder if the world has gone mad.
