Dear Bush-supporters: You can't just say "I'm sorry" - Sirota

[Mass]

Reposted from GD where babylonsister posted it.

I can only say thank you to Sirota. I totally agree with points 1,2, and 3, particularly 3.



http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/50067/#more

Dear Bush-supporters: You can't just say "I'm sorry"

Posted by David Sirota at 12:51 PM on April 2, 2007.


In reading the New York Times report about President Bush’s top strategist Matt Dowd now criticizing Bush, three thoughts came to mind that have been bugging me for quite a while. Here they are, as I want to get them off my chest:

1. I’m tired of Republicans believing that, after destroying the country, all they have to say is “sorry” or "I didn't know Bush was such a right winger" and all should be forgiven. Matt Dowd, Bush’s chief strategist, is the latest guy pulling this nonsense, though certainly not the first. The New York Times ran what essentially was his...

... mea culpa for all the problems of the Bush administration (the cynic in me wonders whether Dowd, a former Democrat, is motivated out of a worry that his affiliation with Bush will prevent him from ever getting political consulting clients again). This is the same thing Lee Atwater tried to pull after he used some of the most underhanded, disgusting tactics to destroy Mike Dukakis. Here’s the deal: When you are a chief architect of horrible things that hurt this country, you don’t get to just wake up one day and say “sorry” and expect that all should be forgiven. Or at least you shouldn’t.

2. Political elites who cite personal interactions with the real world as justification for their sudden reversals on issues are not sympathetic figures. On the contrary, they only reinforce how out of touch the ruling class really is. This happens all the time, whether it is a right-wing, budget-cutting politician who suddenly becomes a passionate crusader against a disease when his family member contracts it, or whether it is a Vice President who decides that the one repudiation of his party’s right-wing will be on gay issues, now that America knows his daughter is gay. Dowd’s mea culpa, in fact, is probably the best example. He implies that because his son, a soldier, is getting shipped off to Iraq, he now is firmly against the Iraq War. That he was for the war when the war didn’t affect his circle of friends and family suggests a sickening self-centeredness coursing through the American ruling class. Only when elites are personally affected by their own draconian policies do we hear regret – but not a peep when those draconian policies hammer the faceless, unfamous masses. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are killed, tens of thousands of American soldiers are killed and maimed, but Bush’s chief strategist only feels regret for the Iraq policy that he championed and that created all this bloodshed when his own son may be put on the line. Could the elitism be any more stark?

3. The knee-jerk cheering by progressives when right-wing lunatics, famous Republican Party operatives and assorted out-of-touch Washington pundits once in a while say something accurate is pathetic and worse, counterproductive. This is a regular occurrence when any number of fringe right-wing pundits like George Will or David Brooks or conventional wisdom peddlers like Joe Klein occasionally writes something that isn’t wholly and completely offensive, inaccurate or divorced from reality. When this happens, the blogosphere lights up with praise, and I’m betting that will happen with Dowd’s mea culpa. I say this is pathetic because touting an opponent for saying something inoffensive one in a hundred times projects a deep insecurity and lack of self-confidence. We tell the world that we feel we need lunatics like George Will, right-wing operatives like Matt Dowd or self-important, lazy intellectual lightweights like Joe Klein to validate our positions, even though our positions are valid on the merits. But even worse is how pro-actively self-defeating it all is. When we trumpet fringe opponents or movement obstacles, we validate those opponents and obstacles as legitimate mainstream voices, when they really are not. By giving any credence to conservative ideologues who are so wrong on the facts or pundits who are wildly out of touch with America, we tell the world that we believe these ideologues are generally important, further empowering these opponents for the future when they inevitably revert back to form. The only treatment fringe columnists like George Will deserve from progressives is derision. The only treatment brain dead power worshippers like Joe Klein deserve from progressives is ridicule (like that which Atrios regularly doles out). And the only treatment Republican operatives like Matt Dowd deserve from progressives is silence. None of them, no matter how they are once in a while correct, deserves any praise. To praise them is to praise the hitting prowess of a designated hitter who bats .051 just because you once saw him hit a single. We don’t do that in sports, and we shouldn’t do it in movement politics.

[wisteria]

1. Good strong post. I agree with #3 also, even more than the other two. n/t

[beachmom]

2. Yep -- that's why I gave up Andrew Sullivan. Reason #3.

True, he usually bats 50% -- 50% good stuff over a month. The other 50% -- petty, uncaring intellectual "conservatism", warmongering against some new entity, emotionally irrational, and bashing good Dems like Boxer, Kennedy, and worst of all, Kerry. His bashing of Kerry is beyond insane -- Kerry is one of the wisest voices on foreign policy in the District, and Sully is very interested in FP. Yet he acts like Kerry is some dumbass who once a year gets something right. In fact, that's the perfect description of Andrew Sullivan. Yeah, I know, he does some good Bush bashing. But you wait -- as Bush begins to fade, he'll aim his gift of the words on Democrats and on the people Democrats are trying to help.

Edited to add: And many of his critiques of Hillary are just beyond ridiculous. Facts, I'm fine with. But his is some vague notion of "cooties" or he "hates the sight of her", and so on. Those aren't real reasons to be against someone for president. And it cheapens the REAL reasons to be opposed to her candidacy.

[WildEyedLiberal]

3. I don't always like Sirota but boy did he nail it.

All 3 points are spot-on but yes, point number 3 does get maddening. Heaping these ghouls with praise when they say something halfway sane implies that we seek their approval and/or consider them valid social commentators. When, as Sirota says, all we should be doing is pointing out how completely, totally, utterly WRONG, PETTY, AND VAPID these empty talking heads are.

But then again, the liberal blogosphere often demonstrates that it is more often than not bereft of any real direction or purpose. It's like they've gotten used to getting their asses kicked by the right wing for so long that they have internalized a loser mentality - I mean, falling all over themselves in thanks and praise when some third rate propagandist like Dowd, Sullivan, Will, et al throws them a few crumbs from the table? THAT is why the left wing can never get anything done - but of course, they're too busy convincing themselves that we lost in 04 because Kerry was a bad candidate, not because the movement in general couldn't sway public opinion if lives depended on it. As a matter of fact, lives DID depend on it. We won in 2006 because some Democrats dared to go on the offensive and act like winners - John Kerry and Howard Dean, along with some great candidates - not because these clowns on the blogs somehow broke through and reached the masses finally.


Oops, didn't mean for this to turn into a rant. Really I didn't.

[ginnyinWI]

4. I'm not cheering Dowd

An apology isn't enough. He needs to somehow undo the damage, like get impeachment proceedings going. Surely he knows enough dirty little secrets, particularly to do with the last election, to torpedo this administration! Cough them up, Dowd, and then I'll let you off the hook.