He may not be using 1984 as his playbook, but Camille Paglia is pretty sure that George Bush is taking cues from Noam Chomsky:
What else? Yet another folly -- creating more generations of hatred against America. The feckless behavior of the Bush administration has been a lurid illustration of Noam Chomsky's books -- which I've always considered half lunatic. Chomsky's hatred of the United States is pathological -- stemming from some bilious problem with father figures that is too fetid to explore. But Chomsky's toxic view of American imperialism and interventionism is like the playbook of the rigid foreign policy of the Bush administration. So, thanks very much, George Bush, you've managed to rocket Noam Chomsky to the top of the bestseller list!
The neocons that have surrounded Bush have made no bones about their desire to build an empire. While more blunt that the majority of them, Ben Shapiro more or less made it abundantly clear where he (and by extension, those who share his neoconservative views), stand with respect to America's imperial adventures. Let's call a spade a spade here. The neoconservatives are bonafide imperialists who are so archetypal for the modern era that they could easily win first prize for Liberal Democrat Boogeyman Of The Year. They would be rightfully regarded as a gross caricature if they did not so precisely resemble the criticism leveled against them.
Now, the thing about Bush is that he embodies what his enemies fear or are frustrated by. He embodies the fears of the liberals: (superficially) religious, seemingly stupid, easily manipulated, prone to cowboyish blustering with no substance behind it while stealing half of their issues and rampaging around the world like a bull in a china shop. For his right wing enemies, he is easily manipulated, effectively liberal on the majority of his domestic issues, won't listen to his base (even lashes out like a frou frou cocktail-slurping suburban yankee yuppy that is so popular with conservatives), has a half-assed foreign policy and basically acts like a feckless lunatic with a single track mind.
I think she really gets to the heart of the Democrats' institutional problems with this:
The Democrats have to start fresh and throw out the entire party superstructure. I was bitterly disappointed after voting for Ralph Nader that he didn't devote himself to helping build a strong third party in this country. When the American economy was still manufacturing based, the trade unions were viable, and the Democrats stayed close to their working-class roots. But now the Northeastern Democrats, with their fancy law degrees and cocktail parties, have simply become peddlers of condescending bromides about "the people."
It is ludicrous to believe anyone who claims to be a "man of the people" and yet lives the life of the average Democratic (or for that matter, Republican) politician. The average person's perspective is simply too different for them to have any claim to say "hey, I'm like you." Were it me who were rich and running for office, I'd never give into populist tendencies. My slogan would be: "MikeT because leaders run countries better than suckups." If challenged on why I don't kiss babies, glad hand the masses and act like "just plain folks" I'd simply say, "do you want a Senator or a Sycophant?"
Leave a comment