Confusing Options

We are quite possibly the most confused nation in the universe. Many people, urged on by a raft of imbecilic politicians, have absolutely no idea what the terms they use mean. Socialism, Fascism it’s all the same to them - - Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Marx they’re interchangeable depending on what motivates the political angst of the moment. Is it the deplorable state of our educational system that keeps so many of us in a state of arrested development? Or does jingoism work so well it has replaced meaningful dialogue in a triumph of mindless political jargon over thoughtful, fact-based discourse?

The philosophical distance among parties is far less obvious these days than the seeming need to take down the current administration by whatever means and to enlist or at the very least sanction the efforts of irresponsible masters of the tirade and their rabble-rousing hyperbole. The minority in Congress spends much of its time trying to weaken the president and thwart his rather naïve attempts to foster bi-partisan consensus with people who have no intention of engaging. The right wing wants the president to fail if it helps them regain power even though the country might suffer as result.

Strange how perverted the notion of patriotism can be. During the Bush years being against the Iraq war was called unpatriotic and unsupportive of our troops in theater and we were supposed to rally round the administration. There was much chest-pounding among Republicans and accusations of weakness directed at Democrats. But these were just words as we were led deeper and deeper into an unnecessary, expensive, no-exit conflict that robbed us of the means to develop domestic programs, endangered our troops and destroyed the lives of countless military families. Somehow, though, attacking the president now, in the face of economic adversity and ongoing foreign commitments, isn’t considered unpatriotic by flag-waving, partisan wind bags.

And those who supported our pre-emptive invasion continue to claim Iraq exemplifies a successful outcome. If the president, they say, would just send more troops to Afghanistan a “surge” there would produce another “success.” The definition of success, however, can be elusive as there remain more loose ends in Iraq than anyone would care to count. And foreign oil-company ventures now in progress there tend to reinforce the feelings among dissenters to the war that oil was the motivating force behind our offensive all along.

How many Americans actually have any real understanding of Afghanistan either historically or geographically? When there are clips of military action on news programs one has to wonder what our troops see when they look out on vast stretches of unfamiliar territory and ponder those enormous impenetrable mountain ranges. And when they encounter indigenous members of the population how do they determine friend or foe?

Confusion exists, even among experts, over our prospects for success. Afghanistan isn’t Iraq, with a leader less open to western influence than Prime Minister Maliki despite claims that Karzai had previous relationships with multi-national corporations and the CIA. So the president wrestles with terrible choices - - fear that leaving would allow the Taliban to establish a stronghold that could threaten Pakistan’s government, the realization that many Afghanis consider us invaders and are reluctant to support our efforts, the financial ramifications of a long engagement, the stress on a military stretched almost beyond endurance and lagging support in our own country. As Frank Rich wrote in his column, NY Times, 11/15/09, “…our hawks, for all their certitude, are as utterly confused as the rest of us about who it is we’re fighting in Afghanistan and to what end.”

Domestically there seems to be no letup to our political distress no matter what the issue under discussion may be. There is no area that doesn’t provide Republicans with an opportunity to criticize the president in the strongest possible terms even if they have to invent things. By appealing to the truly devastating concerns of ordinary Americans without being willing to work in good faith toward finding solutions they do a disservice to their supporters as well as the country. That’s patriotism?

If there was a bright spot in recent days it was Liz Cheney’s hint that a Cheney could run in 2012. Did she mean Daddy or herself? Confusion would end with the emergence of such a clear-cut return to the politics of yesterday and the eight-year bathos that grew during the Bush-Cheney years. Name recognition is often useful in politics. In this case it would be a gift to Democrats. Go for it Liz.