1115.org

No doubt by now you’ve see the above image of Bill Moyer, a 73-year-old Army veteran, from the President’s speech to the VFW in Donnelly, Idaho on Tuesday. Longtime reader Forager came through with a link where you can print your very own high-tech version of Moyer’s aural prophylactic.

After weathering an above-average share of bullshit from the right and watching military service used to attack Democrats as unpatriotic, it’s somewhat satisfying to see a veteran from one of the reddest states in the nation expressing an opinion that I, and an increasing number of Americans, share. And while this is a great photo-op, made even better by the context, it seems that this is headed towards becoming the left’s version of fingerpainting; a hollow gesture that results in a few rounds of backslapping but ultimately obscures reality in a most counterproductive way.

We were brutal in our criticism of the members of Congress and others who decided to show their “solidarity” with Iraqi voters by inking their fingers at this year’s State of the Union address. The images were everywhere for a week, misleading casual observers into believing that the Iraqi election had been a success when they clearly weren’t, (even now the parliament can’t agree on a constitution, even the one that includes Islamic law and its subjugation of women) and mocking two straight Presidential elections rife with voter suppression and intimidation. It was a gimmick that drew the spotlight away from a complicated mess and focused it on a simple and clean symbol. Of course life isn’t simple or clean, especially when freedom is on the march, and both the American and Iraqi people suffered from the absence of complete and honest reporting about the back room deals, artificial timetables, and murky procedure that shrouded the electoral process in Iraq. And now that work on their constitution has ground to a halt as if mired in the desert sand, it is even harder to make sense of just what was gained by holding elections at virtual and literal gunpoint.

The spin that spewed from the Bush administration in the wake of the Iraqi election alone, independent of the alternate realities created before and since, was enough to send half of the country running for ear protection. Moyer can’t be blamed for not wanting to hear what the President has to say, no less an authority than former Bush speechwriter David Frum agrees:

By now it should be clear that President Bush’s words on the subject of Iraq have ceased connecting with the American public. His speech yesterday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars is the latest - and one of the most serious to date - manifestations of the problem.
[…]
Let me mention just one single but maybe decisive problem. Again and again during the Bush presidency - and yesterday most recently - the president will agree to give what is advertised in advance as a major speech. An important venue will be chosen. A crowd of thousands will be gathered. The networks will all be invited. And after these elaborate preparations, the president says … nothing that he has not said a hundred times before.

The problem is more than just one of communications, but for the vast majority of Americans, words are the closest we’ll get to the situation. When the President and his advisors depend on talking points that are clearly not connected to the facts and non sequiturs to maintain “support” for the war, it doesn’t work, and worse, it causes many to stop paying attention altogether. That may suit their goals by dividing the population and fostering political disengagement in the half of the citizens who call bullshit and turn away, but it’s far from the noble politics this nation (or even Iraq) deserves. Precisely because of this “divide and disgruntle” strategy, we shouldn’t even pretend to not listen.

It has become accepted fact that the last five years have suffered from a 50/50 split of the population. But the division isn’t new, only the entrenched orientation of the sides. Battle is done through carefully crafted talking points on cable news rather than Congressional chambers, and because every issue is reduced to a 15-second sound bite, supporters can parrot their argument even if they don’t fully understand it. And because they don’t understand their own argument, it is nearly impossible to convince them that the opposing argument is plausible, much less meritorious. No point is ever conceded, no criticism leveled at any ally, and no time wasted on introspection or a fresh look at the facts.

We got a reminder of that last week when Jason’s post about the President’s refusal to meet with Cindy Sheehan elicited a round of comments that chose to ignore the argument made in favor of Fox News / RNC talking points and reminders of a former President’s sex life. As writers who place a premium on making reasoned arguments through facts and research, it was disappointing to see it all go for naught, overrun by gibberish attacking a grieving mother and man no longer in power while not even acknowledging the simple point: the President could easily have defused the situation by meeting with Sheehan. By failing to take 30 minutes out of a five-week vacation, he in effect put on his own set of ear protectors, well worn from five years of near-constant use. Unfortunately his supporters have followed the example and we are all worse off for it.

It’s been a long time since I’ve believed a word the President has said, but I’ll keep listening. When he says something true, we’ll note the occasion just as we have when a Democrat says something false. Honesty demands it and our democracy depends on it.