To Counter Bush, Dems Must Present a Different Version of a Safe World

[Jerseycoa]

Some Americans find a certain comfort in Bush's thoughts, because they feel that dominance implies moral order and establishes God's moral authority in the world. They believe there is a natural hierarchy in which those who enjoy dominance have the right to do so. Just as God has dominion over man and man has dominion over animals, the imagery of the moral order assumes a world in which people dominate those who are below them.

While many Americans feel reassured by the appearance of moral dominance, other nations, even friendly ones, do not find the President's stance reassuring. Non-Westerners tend to view dominance as imperialism. Many nations perceive the President's authoritarian imagery and mythology and are impelled to find ways to fight against American dominance. Because the world already fears US power, other nations are not comforted by Bush's leadership style. They feel only repugnance and fear. Left unchallenged, the character myth could potentially win George W. Bush four more years, but it will cost his nation dearly over a far longer period of time--perhaps stiffening resistance to American hegemony enough to end our current run of dominance.

The Democratic presidential hopefuls have begun to attack the character myth with repeated statements that Bush has lied to the American people. But the character myth is more pernicious than just lying. Often being bold, cocky and sure of yourself, and inflexibly and rigidly adhering to your principles because you are convinced you are right, can lead to catastrophic consequences. In Iraq, for example, it led to an absence of planning for any failure of our military to win a complete victory with the acceptance of a grateful Iraq. The Army consequently was unprepared for any nation-building, so that the country is now plunged into chaos and disorder, and in real danger, like Afghanistan, of becoming a permanent home for terrorists.

To be truly effective to the broader public, the Democratic candidates must present their own vivid, descriptive depiction of how they can make America safe, not merely dominant. Just as George H.W. Bush called for a New World Order and Truman had the Marshall Plan, the Democratic candidate should enunciate a new vision of a safe and secure world. He or she should show how a collaborative world is really safer than a dominating one. This is the prescription for success in 2004.

Source: Common Dreams Newscenter

[info being]

1. Screw a vision of a safe world...

The world will never be totally safe. We're all gonna die. The question is how we spend our time on earth:

- Reducing suffering and poverty
- Building thriving, healthy communities
- Contribute to a better future
- Preserving this planet

Exciting progress...not the vision of a boring, stale, gated community...that's the country I want.

[KT2000]

2. Good point

We should not forget that the Bush admin has plans for many more incursions. Clark has made this point and after the euphoria re: Saddam capture settles down, he needs to remind everyone about this. I believe they have their sites on five more wars.

[izzie]

5. Well this has been used by a good many sales men for years,

Yar it does work, we are a nation of buyers. We will buy anything if it is packed right. Heck we even bought pet rocks.

[Scott Lee]

3. "Dominant moral order" is the language of imperial supremists.

The very notion of a supreme USA, taking what it wants when it wants and how it wants from the rest of the world, is what makes us the least secure. I'm shocked at how few Americans seem to understand this.

How long do you expect the rest of the planet (which overwhelmingly outnumbers us, by the way) to sit on their hands tolerate such an "order"? The Bush Doctrine of never ending war for the purpose of padding the wallets of the wealthiest is a prescription for disaster. The theme that the Doctrine itself is the greatest threat to our security must be simplified and hammered into the public. The inherent supremist philosophy in American culture is also problematic here, and must be weighed in crafting an anti-Bush Doctrine message.

I'm all ears. How would you craft such a message into a bite sized package for consumption by a culture with the world's shortest attention span?

[specimenfred1984]

4. I Strongly Disagree, The Dem Vision is Already Well Known

That's why we're opposed to Bush in the first place. The brainwashed, dumbed-down, CNN-believing, religo-freak-bigots who are pacified by republican lies are beyond being convinced of anything.

Screw them. A strong country doesn't need them, a smart country doesn't need them and, democrats do not need to pander to them. If they can't even think, just how would some "different vision" convince them of anything?

It wouldn't.

[forgethell]

6. This isn't a bad idea.

We know what we Democrats would do to make the world a better place, medial care for all, no hunger, secure retirement, equal rights, etc. What do we do to make it safer? there are always bad people, Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Osama who are willing to use mass murder and genocide to secure their aims. Then there are those who will lie, cheat, defraud, and use military means without the particular tactics or goals of the above 4. We all know who I'm talking about here, don't we? I fear them both, but somehow, I want to be protected against the first 4 a little bit more.

I think the American people do, too. so what is our plan? Making the world love us is not enough. It only take a few, maybe less than a dozen to pull off another 9/11.

Merry Chirstmas, or whatever.