The ABR Philosophy
Published by dvanhorn December 6th, 2006 in UncategorizedThe “Anybody but Rumsfeld” philosophy is just as dispicable as the ABB one. Consider what could have been asked of Rumsfeld’s replacement:
November 13, 2006
The Revolving Gates at the Pentagon
By Col. DAN SMITH
http://www.counterpunch.org/smith11132006.html
Excerpt:
They may well resurrect the charges lodged against Gates in 1987 and in 1991. They may ask him again whether he lied to Congress about the extent of his involvement in or knowledge of Iran-Contra. They may want to know whether the CIA, under his watch, altered national intelligence estimates on Soviet capabilities to make the threat seem worse than warranted. Their questioning might probe his involvement in providing military equipment and intelligence to Saddam Hussein during the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran War, all of which helped Saddam in his battles against U.S. forces in 1991 in Operation Desert Storm. More broadly, Gates may be held to account once again for the CIA’s failure to predict the demise of the Soviet Union, the lack of monitoring of Saddam’s progress toward developing a nuclear weapon in the 1980s, and the “politicizing” of intelligence to support presidential biases.
Contrasted with:
December 5, 2006
Senators Praise Gates as a Welcome Change
By KATE ZERNIKE
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/05/washington/05cnd-scene.html
Excerpt:
Today, Mr. Gates arrived before the Senate as a savior, welcomed as “a refreshing breath of reality,” applauded from both sides of the aisle for his candor and forthrightness, pledges of bipartisanship and dialogue. And he was promised a speedy confirmation.
Great.
The AB(X) philosophy has never reaped any rewards: Bush’s “Anybody But Saddam” tactic didn’t work, and the Dem’s 2004 response of “Anybody But Bush” obviously didn’t end up working out. We as a society have lost any sense of actual ideology, and instead use the media to intensify the focus on a few (not so key) issues. This leads to polarization, which leads to demonization of those on the other side from you, which leads to an AB(X) strategy.
Until we regain the full-spectrum view that will allow us to interpret the actions of politicians in meaningful terms outside of the media’s tale, we’re stuck with the AB(X) phenomenon. Until Americans get off their asses and figure out how things really work, I can’t think of a better way for a party to motivate their voting base than that very strategy.
Which, as all political problems eventually do, leads to the two-party system. As long as there is a party that is in power and a party that is not (and no other viable choices), the party not in power will employ the AB(X) model. With 24-hour news cycles and the microscope fixed on Washington, there’s plenty of mud to sling. Not only that, it’s easier to paint a party’s opponent as “not the guy” than to paint your party’s candidate as “the guy”: The latter involves actually saying something meaningful and being held to it.