I've Been to the Mountaintop … and Then I Razed It
/in Bush Administration, Hollinger International /by emptywheelFrancis Fukuyama, You Got Duped by an Ignoble Lie
/in Bush Administration, Hollinger International, Ideas and Ideology /by emptywheelFrancis Fukuyama wants you to know that he’s no longer associated with Neo-Conservatism. Nope, he’s done with it.
Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.
I appreciate the public disavowal of the movement. But Fukuyama still doesn’t get it. He imagines the intentions of the Neo-Conservatives were good, and that it was just dumb luck and inaccurate intelligence that doomed those intentions, and with them, the credibility of the movement.
But successful pre-emption depends on the ability to predict the futureaccurately and on good intelligence, which was not forthcoming, whileAmerica’s perceived unilateralism has isolated it as never before.
This is a convenient self-deception, that the shitty intelligence and the inaccurate predictions were unmotivated. Here’s Paul Pillar in Foreign Affairs, a journal I’d wager Fukuyama reads quite closely.
Neo-Feudalists
/in Bush Administration, Hollinger International, Ideas and Ideology /by emptywheelThere’s been a lively discussion about labels recently–particularly as more true conservatives attempt to create a position from which to oppose Bush without ceding their identity as conservatives. It’s a discussion I’ve been thinking a lot about, not least because I’m dabbling with an argument that we need to think of the "Conservative Movement" as a more cohesive, intentional whole. These thoughts, plus my recent obsession with Texas Royalty, makes me want to argue strongly for the term "Neo-Feudalist."
One of the problems–both for the left, and those true conservatives seeking to distance themselves from Bush–is that no one has challenged the misnomer "Conservative Movement." There is nothing conservative about what BushCo are trying to pull off–he’s trying to radically alter the structure of our government and society, in the process cynically capitalizing on conservative moral values while violating those values himself. And BushCo doesn’t aspire to anything so impermanent as a movement. (Though I do wonder whether they cling to the word "movement" in deference to Michael Ledeen’s belief that the Italian fascist movement was all good, it was just the regime that went bad.) We on the left would do well to avoid accepting this frame for their efforts. And the true conservatives really deserve to have their word "conservative" back, without the taint that it has acquired from its Movement and Neo appendages.
And in search for a term that more accurately describes their plan, I’m settling on Neo-Feudalist.
What Was Dick Really Hiding?
/in Bush Administration, Hollinger International /by emptywheelI’ve been promising for a few days now that I was going to do a post on Anne Armstrong, whom I’ve dubbed the grande dame of Republican scandal. I’ll get there, I’ll get there. But first let me talk about why I think it’s important.
By now, I think all reasonable people agree there are a number of curious discrepancies in the Deadeye Dick shooting story. And while I think the rumors floating out there have a germ of truth to them, I don’t think they can fully explain the story. Oh, sure, I’m sure alcohol was a big part of the story. First Katharine Armstrong the 100-yard eyewitness says "No, zero, zippo" then she admits on background that there might have been a few beers in the picnic basket? Then Dick sheepishly admits to a beer. (Though my former fake ex-husband tells me that the hunters around Jackson Hole–where Dick lives when he’s not playing Texan–don’t drink beer when they hunt, because it makes them pee; they drink whiskey.) I think the alcohol aspect is especially likely since the people who went to the hospital on Saturday night–Ben Love, Mercedes Whittington, Bob Hixon, and George Willeford–made up the entire other hunting party. If Dick’s hunting party was drinking heavily, it would make sense that none of them would go to the hospital while still shit-faced.
But the alcohol can’t be the sum of the story. If it were, Katharine Armstrong and Dick would not have made such herculean efforts to avoid mentioning Pamela Willeford, who after all really did see the accident since she was standing right there next to Dick (that is, if we can believe the stories they’ve been telling).
Dick Cheney, Hunting the Truth
/in Bush Administration, Press and Media /by emptywheelOne of the most fascinating things about Dick’s little hunting accident is that it exposes Dick violating the rules–rules that few are going to argue are partisan. When Dick and Libby broke the law to out Valerie Plame, wingnuts proclaimed they were just exposing an unfair partisan attack. When Dick and Bush broke the law to eavesdrop on American citizens, most Republicans excused it by saying Democratic complaints about the law-breaking just proves they’re pre-9/11 partisan sissies. But many of the same conservatives excusing Dick for breaking the laws of the United States are the same who will tell you–in no uncertain terms–that you don’t shoot your gun without looking where you’re shooting. My blogmates (who are much better shots than I) are better qualified than I to pursue this line of thought. Meanwhile, though, I’d like to talk about a similar object lesson this shooting incident might offer.
Cheney’s shooting accident and the bungled aftermath demonstrates clearly (again, to people who have doubted this in the past) many of Cheney’s and Rove’s favorite techniques for lying.
Repeating the Lie until It Becomes True
My favorite of these is a technique that is quickly becoming ineffective. Just keep asserting something to be the truth over and over again. Will it to be true.