Tuesday, August 02, 2005

CAMPAIGNING VS RULING

There's a difference between getting elected and actually ruling. Note that when I talk about the Bush Administration I do not use the terms "leading" or "representing." I specifically use the term ruling, the reasons being obvious.

The Bush regime, through a highly efficient use of porpganda (read distortions, prevarications, selective use of facts, and mingling of truths with falsehoods), has proven time and time again that it knows how to twist the American people around its little finger. A sane reading of the last campaign tells us that the same party which said that Al Gore would "run on fear itself," in fact played the fear/hate card itself throughout the 2002 and 2004 elections.

This is no accident.

Consider the following example: the idea of a dirty bomb. This obviously would not be a walk through the park, but there are very practical methods, medical measures, that the American people could take to protect themselves if such an event were to occur. But does the Bush administration tell us about these measures? No. They can spend millions of dollars on a propaganda campaign to promote their drug company-written medicare bill, but they can't get behind a life-saving public service message that would tell people what to do in the event of a dirty bomb. Why if you didn't know better you'd think that they were actually AFRAID to give the American people a little hope.


This is no accident. To release such information on a national basis would relieve some of the fear about the situation and this is the last thing that the Bush regime wants to happen. Instead, the Bush regime would rather keep the American people in the dark, perpetuate the state of fear, and score political points in the process. In a similar vein, the Republican party promotes fear and anger when it campaigns (some might say proselytizes) against gays, women, liberals, etc. But that's another topic to be discussed in more detail in another time and place.

The type of war in which we are engaged says it all--and I am not talking about the wars in Afghanistan (which is a necessity) and the war in Iraq (which is a product of arrogant presumption, hubris, greed, and arrogance). We are, according to the president and his gang of nepotimistic thugs, engaged in a "war on terror." Excuse, me but just how do you wage a war on a human emotion? And why would you want to wage a war on a human emotion in the first place? Why are we not waging a war against terrorISM?

The answer is obvious. The Bush regime, in one of its few, accidental moments of honesty, has actually revealed something about itself. It is indeed waging a war on human emotions. But not with the intention of conquering fear. Far from it. The Bush administration is actually determined to PROMOTE terror at the expense of love, trust, and generosity. When you have the right circumstances and ruthless individuals in place who are willing to exploit fear and mix truths with falsehoods, getting elected is easy.

Perhaps TOO easy.

Ruling, however, is another matter: two wars going sour; our reputation in ruins across the face of the earth; a massive budget deficit; increasing numbers of uninsured Americans; oil at all time high prices; ditto to prices at the gas pump; increasing prices for heating oil, electrical power, natural gas, and water; Americans working longer and harder hours just to stay where they are in the rat race, ad infinitum. If ruling were in any way easy, the Bush Regime wouldn't find itself ranked between the AIDS and Ebola Viruses and Jack The Ripper in American opinion polls.

But then again, ruling isn't the same as running a political campaign. During the campaign Bush got to make a lot of empty promises. Now he has to either put up or shut up. Or to put it another way, poor Mister Bush has learned that having is not as pleasant as wanting

1 comment:

Dreamer said...

I think you are putting too much faith in the Bush Administration. I consider it unlikely that there is any conspiricy to promote terror above love, generosity, etc etc. That seems idealistic.

Now, a television campaign to promote dirty bomb awareness/preparedness. That's a damn good idea! I suggest you write your congressperson to air the suggestion. Or draft a letter and place it on your site for others to copy and emulate.

Why haven't they done such an activity? The Admin only pays for television spots when they are running for re-election. Commercials cost big money. This definately falls within the domaino of the legislature which could find room in the budget if there is enough public pressure.