Axis Me No Questions...

Axis Me No Questions...

8 February 2002

George W. Bush's State of the Union address has laid bare his Administration's political strategy. It is to manipulate the grief, anger and patriotism inspired by September 11 to fit the contours of the right-wing Republican agenda of September 10. What that Day of Infamy means to George W. Bush & Co. is more tax cuts for the wealthy, more money for wasteful weapons schemes and the back of their proverbial hand to those who suffer the misfortune of not being rich in Bush's America.

Viewed under any other rubric, Bush's speech--received so rapturously by a well-stroked punditocracy--is entirely incoherent. Does war demand sacrifice? Let's give more tax breaks to the rich. Did stateless terrorists attack us wielding only box cutters? Let's build a nonfunctional $250 billion missile defense system. Does the bond market demand fiscal responsibility for sustained growth? Suppose we spend down the surplus, raid the Social Security trust fund and create deficits of a size unseen since the bad old days of Reagan/Bush. Do we need allies now more than ever in the fight against terrorism? Why not alienate all of them with a unilateral declaration of a global war against an imaginary &qupt;Axis of Evil&qupt;--nonsensically invoking Hitler and Tojo for good measure? Never mind that Iraq, according to the CIA, has not attempted a terrorist act against us in nearly a decade, or that Iran and Iraq hate each other, or that Iran has democratic elections (and the winner even gets to be president) and that North Korea has nothing to do with any of this. Just to be safe, perhaps we'd better give a pass to friendly terrorists like the Russians, currently engaged in the wholesale rape and pillage of Chechnya, and China, doing a quieter but more effective job in Tibet.

Bush's hyperbolic oration, inspired no doubt by the vanity and indiscipline of his speechwriters, recalls another President's politically inspired scare tactics. In late 1947 Clark Clifford and James Rowe instructed Harry Truman, &qupt;The worse matters get, up to a fairly certain point--real danger of imminent war--the more is there a sense of crisis. In times of crisis the American citizen tends to back up his President.&qupt; The result was the famed war scare of 1948, in which that accidental President started trumpeting &qupt;the critical nature of the situation in Europe,&qupt; the necessity for &qupt;speedy action,&qupt; the &qupt;great urgency&qupt; of the problem of the Soviet threat. He did this even though, as State Department counselor Charles Bohlen explained in a confidential January 1948 memo, the government considered its position &qupt;vis-�-vis the Soviet better now than at any time since the end of the war.&qupt;

As in 1948, we face a military threat that requires a vigorous, but proportional, response. And the government has no more critical responsibility than the defense of the &qupt;homeland.&qupt; But once again the disjunction between those ends and the eternally expansive means proposed by Bush is so vast as to render transparent the political motivations behind it. Karl Rove nearly admitted as much when he recently advised a group of Republican activists to use the war in Afghanistan to win elections here at home. The Evil Empire has expired, but the Evil Axis is open for praxis.

As Slate reported, the response overseas to Bush's speech was almost uniformly disapproving, with editorialists condemning the &qupt;Hate of the Union&qupt; (The Guardian); the &qupt;distinctly disturbing&qupt; message (The Independent); a tone &qupt;more martial than ever&qupt; (Lib�ration); containing &qupt;no hint here that he understands that he is talking of sovereign nations&qupt; (the Sydney Morning Herald).

Alas, foreigners don't vote. In fact, Americans don't vote until long after favor-seeking corporations like Enron have decided which candidates to fund in exchange for favors and after pundits have chewed up and spit out the issues and candidates sufficiently to determine who is a serious, responsible candidate and what might be prudently said about the issues on the campaign trail. For the latter reason, it is rather alarming to notice that conservative extremism has become so commonplace that even on allegedly nonpartisan broadcasts, it is treated as conventional wisdom.

Take the minor but emblematic example of CNBC's coverage of the Bush speech. The network's deal with the Wall Street Journal allows genuine reporters to provide viewers with a respite from the constant stream of analysts and CEOs showing up to hawk their portfolios and jack up stock prices. But as everyone but the network's executives seems to know, the Journal is really two newspapers: one with a crack news staff and one with a crackpot editorial staff.

During the Clinton Administration, no nutty rumor or oddball allegation about the President was deemed too goofy to publish by those editors. I have on my shelf six fat volumes containing some 3,000 pages of the Journal's editorial page fulminations regarding an Arkansas land deal called &qupt;Whitewater&qupt; in which both Clintons were found to be innocent of any criminal conduct by Republican-appointed special prosecutors. And yet following Bush's speech, the editors were invited by CNBC to comment on Bush and the Democratic respondent, Richard Gephardt, with no balance at all. To go as far left as the Journal editors are to the right, CNBC would have to convene a roundtable featuring Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, Vanessa Redgrave and Fidel Castro.

Were any CNBC viewers surprised to hear that Paul Gigot thought Bush gave &qupt;a muscular speech, a speech of old-fashioned muscular virtues--justice, honor, courage, responsibility&qupt;? Or Susan Lee's view that Bush had been &qupt;very polished...very laserlike...extremely intense,&qupt; with &qupt;fantastic&qupt; rhetoric she found to be &qupt;incredibly manly and muscular&qupt;? How generous, too, of Gigot to note that Gephardt had given &qupt;a good speech...for one reason. It basically said: I agree with the president.&qupt; Robert Bartley didn't think it mattered. &qupt;You know, Bush is going to win again the next time out.&qupt; But didn't the sane portion of Bartley's newspaper publish its own poll showing that &qupt;a clear majority&qupt; of Americans would choose &qupt;delaying the already enacted tax cuts for the rich&qupt; to protect domestic programs? &qupt;That's a loaded question,&qupt; says Bartley. Planted no doubt by an evil pollster with an axis to grind.

Index page on Response to attacks in US

Action Alerts PMA's newsletter What's on where Peace links Help PMA grow How PMA can help you Petition Forms Site Map