AmericanProspect: Who’s Your Daddy Party?

[unhappycamper]

Who’s Your Daddy Party?
The American Prospect
By Francis Wilkinson
Issue Date: 06.06.06

“Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness.”

President George W. Bush has made that statement many times. So has Vice President Dick Cheney. And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Multiple principals endlessly repeating themselves -- that’s the mark of a premium White House talking point. Or in this case, a kind of gospel -- poll-tested, market-driven, swing-voter–approved, and sanctioned by Kardinal Rove himself.

Like its religious counterpart, political liturgy does not reward literal interpretation. The “weakness” that invites our destruction is not a measurable, structural weakness of nations. It is more insidious than that. It is the weakness of men. Certain men of uncertain will. Unmanly men. Men who lack the grit and determination to command other men to expend their grit and determination in battle. Girly men. Men who snuggle before the domestic hearth of the Mommy Party. Men who fuss and fret over Mother Nature (when what she really needs is a good drilling). Men who wish to restrain the natural urges of natural men, to smother initiative and stifle competition beneath the suffocating pleats and ruffles of the Nanny State. Men who are effete. Men who cut and run. Men without guns or guts or glory. Men whose weakness abases and undermines the rugged individualism and frontier can-do that made the United States Numero Uno.

~snip~

No matter what ideological hue he projects, whether conservatism, corporatism, idealistic imperialism, or his studied tracings of Ronald Reagan’s rugged sentimentalism, Bush has made manliness the centerpiece of his persona and his politics. Bush’s flight-deck performance aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln -- “Mission Accomplished” -- long ago became Esperanto for “hubris.” But as psychologist Stephen J. Ducat noted in his provocative book on masculine anxiety, The Wimp Factor, the event began as a ballsy celebration, first and foremost, of Bush’s manhood. Observing the President’s flight suit, which expressly accentuated his crotch, G. Gordon Liddy, the right’s uncensored id, noted: “It makes the best of his manly characteristic.”

We are in our sixth year of government by gonads. Through conscious, concerted, disciplined, and relentless effort, Bush and his party have succeeded in cowing critics and defeating Democrats by advancing images of, and insinuations about, manliness in the public sphere. In the Republican political schemata, this is a man’s world. Men have made it dangerous. And only men -- real Republican men -- can make it safe again.

more

[Olney Blue]

1. Best article in a long time. Fantastic. Recommended.

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[OKNancy]

2. I know who could use a mail forward of this article:

Chris Matthews. He certainly has bought into the "manly" theme.
Like all talking-head-know-it-alls, he won't have enough insight to figure out that this is the theme he has bought into...or maybe he would and he thinks it's just fine.

Thanks for posting this - :hi:

[babylonsister]

3. Ooh, so good! I have a particular repug

turned 'independent conservative' recently :rofl: that I'll be sharing this with. Thanks, uhc!

[tomreedtoon]

4. You guys may not like it but...it works, doesn't it?

If Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004, had really fought back against the "supposedly manly" Bush and his propaganda cronies, they would have won. They were seen as wimps. They still are, by everyone but their supporters.

And the horrible point is that both men, on the basis of service to country and life experience, had much better credentials for real manliness than the AWOL, business-fudging Bush. But they were too uncomfortable putting their manly virtues on display, or defending their manly credentials against the attacks of...let's fact it...Desperate Republican Housewives spreading around gossip. They wilted against not very intense fire.

Until the Democrats get a candidate that can fight back in a manly fashion - even if the candidate is biologically female - Bush or someone just like him will stay in power. I still see no hope for 2008 at this rate, with the candidates being promoted here.

[smoogatz]

5. Worked, maybe. Past tense.

I could be wrong, but my sense is that a considerable majority of the electorate would happily trade Bush's Codpiece Diplomacy for a nice warm batch of competent Dem nerdwonkery right about now.

[tomreedtoon]

6. Well, we'll see in 2008 whether you're right or we're damned.

We'll see if the 2008 Democratic candidate will be a fighter or the same kind of loser-wimp we had the last two times. We'll see if he, she or it will allow Bush or his selected heir to throw crap all over his, her or its reputation, and sit idly by while right-wing radio works its dark magic.

Of course, by that time it'll be too late to try a corrective strategy. And Bush (who will quite possibly get a third and more terms, since the Republicans can end that silly term-limit provision with their majority status) or his cohort will win again.

You know, one definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result...

[smoogatz]

7. They'd have to repeal the 22nd amendment

which would require a new amendment to the Constitution--which would require the approval of 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states. It'll never happen. Bush could presumably declare martial law and suspend the elections based on some trumped up national emergency, I suppose--lots of folks here have speculated on that possibility. What's interesting (and horrifying) is that the Constitution says nothing about how many times a person can be Vice President. There's actually no legal impediment to another eight years of Shotgun Dick running the country. Terrifying.

But your point is well taken. To some extent, Gore and Kerry were perceived as wimps because, well, they behaved like wimps. They ran polite, gentlemanly campaigns in the face of ruthless character assassination. That, we now know, is a recipe for disaster.

[Strawman]

8. I think that's it

What else explains a culture of Hummers, the WWE, etc.. the Republicans' bread and butter is exploiting that. Without lopsided support from gender anxious males, they're sunk.

Seen those recent Burger King commericals? "I am Man?" When your losing the argument about how your food is terrible for people, salvage your share of the male market by implying that healthy eating is wimpy and eating junk food and not giving a shit makes you some sort of manly badass. Same shit as W'04. Same marketing tactic.