Politics and the Art of Blame

The indelible stamp the Bush-Cheney Administration has made on America and its global reputation will resonate well into the next decade. Without question, America has systematically isolated itself on the world stage and methodically perpetrated what is considered by many as the largest public relations hoax in history. This article sets aside the obvious redundancy of circumscribing the Bush family history and the Bush-Cheney ties to "big oil"; the Wolfowitz Doctrine and American pre-eminence; and American foreign policy initiatives in 1979 (i.e. alliance with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden during the Soviet - Afghanistan War and Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War). In the past, American foreign policy has made some strange bedfellows. Instead, this article creates a context for and reviews the types of political tools the Administration has used over the past 9 years to get their domestic policy objectives met.

The Role of "Democracy": First, in today's America, there is little regard for the practice of democracy. Many eulogize the concept, but fall short in implementation. Democracy has evolved into a tool, used by the economically and politically elite to create sentiment for, and the illusion of public input into governance. In effect, one vote, one person means little when the ruling parties on both sides are really out of touch with the average person. This is the primary reason why the art of public relations and media manipulation is used - to elucidate and draw lines between disparate groups in America where there really is no commonality.

Opponents of this view of democracy will vehemently argue that everyone gets to exercise their right of enfranchisement and vote their conscience every few years, and hence there is an active and vibrant democracy in America. However, this highly spun view of democracy, touted by those who want to perpetuate this illusion, is done for a reason. Yes, there is a "free vote", and yes there are countries that do not have this, but does this mean that mouthing the words actually represents what democracy is supposed to embody? The drafters of the U.S. Constitution, upon which virtually every aspect of American society is predicated had no way of knowing the far-reaching impact that economic elitism and modern day political public relations and communications techniques and tactics would have on "democracy". Ask yourself, how much clout or control you feel you have over public policy? Do you even know how the system works? Did you know that the idea of a free press was initially planned as a measure of creating a check and balance on the Republic? Do you think it currently does?

The Role of Media: The whole notion of media as watchdog on the Executive branch of Government went the "way of the Dodo" shortly after 9/11, and likely long before. The Bush-Cheney Administration was given carte blanche after the World Trade Centre attacks to do whatever it wanted. In effect, the attacks removed any limitations on the Administration's mandate; instantaneously created an easy to leverage power base; and diminished the constitutional need to be accountable. This was evidently supported by the majority of Americans, with the ensuing political tactics used adroitly by the GOP to further the party's and its contributors own political imperialistic aims. After 9/11, the force of public opinion was easily manipulated due to the natural occurrence of fear, ego, anger, and the demand for retribution as a consequence of the attacks. The Administration simply reframed and redirected this energy into an "us or them" paradigm, which they have used ever since to justify decisions both abroad and at home. Initially, the American people were overwhelmingly "on-side" as the government positioned itself as the righteous and good, but gradually, as the trauma-induced fear, ego, anger and need for retribution subsided, clear thinkers began to question how much power the government had absorbed, was using, and how safe it was in the hands of a media that was offering no checks or balances. Unfortunately, this groundswell of clear thinking did not arise in time for the Kerry defeat in 2004.

Us or Them: To effectively use the us/them strategy, the Bush-Cheney Administration devised an America v. Terrorists paradigm (Terrorists initially defined as Osama Bin Laden and extremist Muslims). However, quickly, the term "Terrorist" was redefined to include non-American, non-Christian, non-continental, non-white, non-ally, and lastly non-supportive of American government policy of any sort - in essence, anyone or any group who did not buy into the Bush-Cheney agenda. Countries initially supportive of the United States, began to increasingly diminish in numbers as the Bush-Cheney Administration sought catharsis after 9/11. Since striking out and making meaningful gains against Terrorism was nebulous and akin to holding mercury in your fingertips, they decided to resurrect and reify an old enemy from the closet - who else but a UN sanctioned, fully-embargoed, struggling, but anti-American nation all but ostracized by the rest of the Middle East, and a sworn Bush family enemy - yes, Iraq, and Saddam Hussein. And, yes, he was a bad man.

During this period, America's trend toward isolationism was tempered only by its realization that the probability of having mass ally enrolment for its paranoiac view of the world and this "new" terrorism threat was slim. Terrorism is not new. It has just never been so present in North America. Nevertheless, the increasingly rapid beating "drums of war" amplified the message that a drastic response was required. The us/them strategy allowed the Bush Administration to attack a country unilaterally and without any good cause. Once support for this farcically contrived enemy and for the war was established, there would be no turning back. It became obvious to the Administration that they could ostensibly do anything they wanted under the guise of protecting America - no checks and balances required. So, international law was abandoned, and the country was unanimously and knowingly plunged into the conflict in Iraq.

Strategies and Tactics: So, the question remains, how is it that the Bush-Cheney Administration could have possibly gotten away with marginalizing and pitting its own citizens against one another - people of clear mind and conscience. How did they manage to subjugate free will and sound thinking in favour of draconian, self-serving energy policies which have ultimately served to benefit the most wealthy segment of the American public with the emotional support of the general public, who would be the bearers of this cost (financially and in human lives)? Moreover, how did they tactically justify these decisions and the process chosen knowing that countless numbers of its young men and women would be thrust unknowingly into "harm's way", with a nod from their mothers and fathers? The answer to this dynamic remains buried in Americana. In order to uncover the collective logic and reason, one would need to drill down into American society, and look carefully at the socioeconomic class systems and groupings as well as the education and communications environments currently in place. This activity is beyond the scope of this article. However, suffice to say, large numbers of young adults from the elite and politically powerful classes did not end up going to Iraq. To put it another way using the metaphor of a hearty all-American, bacon and eggs breakfast: "the chicken was supportive, but the pig was committed".

So, let's look at how the Bush-Cheney Administration and their advisors were able to convince the American public of the "right" thing to do. First, the us/them paradigm was so pervasively and remarkably successful, that the architect(s) of the Iraq War (Bush, Cheney, Rove) and their toadies began using the same approach domestically. In fact, the results of these strategies and tactics were so profoundly effective by the Bush-Cheney Administration that they have become the hallmark of this Presidency. An unsuspecting John Kerry and the Democratic Party were the victims of this rolling public relations us/them juggernaut in November 2004. The architects of spin painted Kerry, a decorated war veteran, as essentially a draft-dodger; a liar; an atheist; an elitist; not representative of the American public; a "flip-flopper"; and unable to be trusted to make a decision - in effect, one who could not be trusted, period. The idea surfaced at this time, that it was more preferable to hold onto a catastrophic decision than it was to change a decision, regardless of the consequences. This logic is perplexing at best, but the media essentially framed this concept and stuck to this characterization throughout the election. Bush, on the other hand, was painted as a patriot; a tough and decisive leader; a "War President"; "god fearing"; an "apple pie good 'ole boy" with good common sense and in touch with the will of the people - in effect, one who could be trusted. Regardless of the veracity of the arguments and representations, we know the history. Bush got another term and Kerry slipped back into relative anonymity.

So how do they do this? How do you take a nation of 300 million and convince it that untruths or partial truths are truths, and that truths or partial truths are untruths? Well, first, you emotionally align and link yourself with the concept of "patriot". You create a [false, but self-serving] dichotomy wherein, "if you are not with us then you are against us", or in other words, you are with "them" - the terrorists. You define terrorist as any non-American group who does not fit within your parochially and ever-changing guideposts. This strategy is particularly effective, but dangerous in that you run the risk of disenfranchising and marginalizing those who question dogma in favour of good sense and conscience. However, if the public's collective level of education, knowledge, and objective awareness is not at a sufficient level to question this logic, then you, as society, effectively place power into the hands of a few and God help you if those few are not benevolent.

Second, you align yourself with a Christian "God". Once you have made this emotional connection, you convey through the media and at every opportunity that if you are not a believer in a Christian God (which 80% of the American public in fact, do), then you are not with "us", and by definition, you must be with "them". Once you have created this dichotomy and frozen it in the minds of the public, you can always tweak it later through some other appeal to patriotism or claim of ally-ship (i.e. in the case of Saudi Arabia). Oh yes, let's us not forget that 15 of the 19 hi-jackers of 9/11 were Saudi nationals.

Third, the best defense is a good offense. Through the strategic use of ideological pundits and toadies (e.g., Ann Coulter), and media pawns the likes Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck, you launch a crusade of smear, wherein you promote anger and outrage at every corner and shout down any good sense wherever it arises and conflicts with your agenda. You create public relations campaigns which proactively anticipate and rebut moderate responses and solutions to the complex problems being faced, well in advance. The tactics you use are: finger-pointing, blaming, side-stepping, deflecting, shouting down, sloughing off, minimizing the importance, personal attacks, and any other messaging strategy that undermines your opponent. You do all this whilst aligning yourself with a self-described and self-defined notion of what it means to be a patriotic, god-fearing, respectable, aligned, and in touch with "America". Mix this up in a crucible and keep adding the ingredients of fear, anger, and intolerance to ensure your message continues to get through loud and clear.

Democrat Impotence: Democrats reel when they meet up with these GOP guerilla marketing and public relations tactics. Instead of calling these strategies what they really are - groundless and baseless smearing, finger-pointing and blaming in an attempt to deflect attention from deficient and faulty domestic and foreign policies, Democrats feebly attempt to take the high road and become apologists for their own poorly thought through platform or lack of decision-making. Leadership takes courage - "Obama-like" courage. What does the perennially Democratic waffling do in the end? It creates an impression that the Democrats really don't stand for anything; are fearful of making decisions; are anti-American; without courage; and unable to offer cogent answers to complex problems. Why does this consistently happen? In truth, American governance has come down to weekly polling of public opinion; CNN sound bites; strategic alignment of values (even when no alignment really exists); and strategic public relations campaigns.

The Answer: There is no political accountability in America, only messaging and public relations strategies. Democratic free will and good sense in governance has been replaced by strategic media manipulation. There is only one solution to this potentially disastrous downward spiral in the American soci-political context - improve education and awareness and decry sensationalism. To be fit to lead and role model the way of progress, globally, in this century, America must responsively and dramatically open its collective eyes and minds to the creation of domestic and foreign policy which reflects the current realities we are all facing and not the anachronistic "cold war" mentality of grey haired men and their sons.

In order to move forward this century, the focus of North American education needs to make a marked shift toward an educated, balanced view and awareness of: (a) the reality of a closed global environmental system (i.e., the earth is finite and once used up, much of it is non-renewable); (b) the reality, limitations, and consequences of human evolution, consumerism, and accumulating for the sake of accumulating; (c) the threats and limitations posed by rampant extremism of all kinds (including, but not limited to: religious, economic, psychological, social, andphysical); (d) the danger of unabashedly unchecked media sensationalism, public relations spins, and sound-bite mentality in the mass communication of fact and/or truth; and (e) evolving beyond intolerance, anger, ego, self-centered individualism, and us/them ways of thinking and acting and moving more toward an era of patience, tolerance, strength, and role modeling. To be the just, fair leader of civilization in the 21st century, America must begin by forsaking the entrenched smugness of "hanging its hat" on things that worked in the past on this continent, in favour of what will work in the future, for this planet. Leadership has both privileges and responsibilities. Leading the way forward requires a long-term vision and pragmatism; bringing others into the fold; and not short-to-medium-term Armageddon-based thinking or objectives. It's time for responsibility, accountability, and balance. The community of world depends on these things and on America to lead the way.