In the recent past, there has been a lot of talk regarding Bush's "approval ratings". Since I have little to no knowledge of how this relates to moral fidelity, i decided to do a little research.
I found this nifty chart that shows most of the publicly recognized ratings all on 1 graph. As we review, it is obvious that the creator of this chart was trying to make a point. Note the spikes in approval and the corresponding events that persumably created the spikes. The Democrats will gleefully point to the stark downward trend. They will speak (in pragmatic terms only) about the failings of the war in Iraq - that it is too expensive, that it is not accomplishing its stated goals, etc. As far as a moral position, however, they are strangely silent. Given the amount of mileage that the Republicans have gotten by using their "Return to Moral Values" campaign, this seems odd.
I don't often agree with our President, but he is accurate when he said:
“When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support,” Bush said. “While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.” - Taken from MSNBC News services, November 12 2006
To illustrate the point, we can refreence the first major piece of legislation in post-9/11 Congress, the Patriot Act. It was approved 98-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House. The "yea" votes include Clinton, Condit, and Pelosi. In responding to questions regarding her voting patterns during the Iraq war, Hillary Clinton had this to say. In reading Hillary's (prepared) response, it is striking how hollow the letter rings. One almost gets the sense of a staff of writers sitting around a table at night, wondering "how do we explain our way out of this, and sling dirt at the current administration at the same time?"
In the wake of the huge Democratic take-over of Congress, and the formal charges being filed against the current administration and its torture policies, the Democrats are in perfect position to broadcast their message to the nation. What do you suppose they will say? Will the moral objections to the war come to the forefront of the debate?
Don't count on it.
Even if they do, will it make any difference?
Once again referencing the approval rating chart above, a leap in approval rating occurs at each "victory"- Invading Iraq, catching Saddam, etc. It would appear that approval rating is directly tied to victory, not to morality; to pragmatism, not to virtue. Morality has been sanitized and varnished, to be used as a campaign slogan. Compassion for one's fellow man is only relevant in as much as it gathers votes for the campaigning politician.
The message this sends to politicians: Success in politics will be directly related to your ability to move the debate from the moral area to the pragmatic pantheon of wins and losses. Talk about morality all you like, as long as it does not interfere with winning.
|
Posts
6 Responses - Click Here to Comment:
Revisionist history rules!
Unfortunately the American public has the attention span and memory retention of a fruit fly... it works.
Germany is HIGHLY unlikely to file charges against Rumsfeld. It was all just a stunt:
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/11/16/time-by-the-way-never-mind-about-that-rumsfeld-war-crimes-suit/
Perhaps, in reading the above link, my point was less clear than intended. Im not particularly interestied in Germany prosecuting anyone. The point was that both political parties, wrapped in the American flag and self-procalimed piety, incessantly try to show that their party is the "more moral" of the 2; all the while, they miss the entire point.
“When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support,” Bush said. “While it’s perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.”
In his statement, the President conveniently forgets that at the time of the vote, Congess was grossly misled by, at best, exceedingly errant, or at worst, horrificly devious information regarding Iraqi WMD capability. Why? Because he can, knowing that the American Public can't remember what they ate for dinner last night, let alone the events that led to the Iraqi invasion.
The Democratic Party spin doctors can conveniently re-write history and claim moral outrage over the war in Iraq and the gross mismanagement of it. Why, because again, they can bank on the lack of public attention span.
The President(and the Republican Party, realizing that revisionist history works (this time heavily favoring the Democrats), can only respond by claiming to be morally offended by the spin.
The reality is, it's more about public approval and less about morals. Were the polls to actually be in favor of the Iraq War, the spin machines would be in reverse (both parties being equally adept). Morality is merely the vehicle used to deliver the message.
Vezinni has gotten the essence of my point. "Morality" is a punch line, not a way of operating.
I realize that the post wasn't really about the Germany prosecution issue, I was just pointing out that it was overhyped.
Post a Comment