I Am Conventional Wisdom: An Unstoppable Zombie Wreaks Havoc On America

It's the most frightening zombie tale of the year, but it's not I Am Legend, and it doesn't star Will Smith. Instead, this one features George Bush, Dick Cheney, and a supporting cast made up of Beltway "experts" like David Brooks and Tim Russert. The script is written by a small number of Washington media types. It's called Conventional Wisdom and, sadly, it's always playing at a venue near you.

The latest version of this many-sequeled franchise premiered less than 48 hours after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. In this real-life horror, the conventional wisdom about the war in Iraq came back from the dead, reasserting the absurd notion that the more wrong you were about Iraq, the more credibility your opinion has about anything having to do with terrorism, the Middle East, Islam, or national security.

Accordingly, conventional wisdom has it that the main "beneficiaries" of the turmoil in Pakistan are Rudy Giuliani, who has yet to utter a critical word about the Bush strategy in the Middle East, and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate who took the longest to separate herself from that strategy.

You might think that the one positive thing to come out of this tragedy would be the opportunity it gives us to reassess not only our strategy in the Middle East, but the conventional wisdom that gave rise to this strategy and continues to sustain it.

But, sadly, you would be wrong. Because the conventional wisdom is composed largely of what Atrios calls "zombie lies." They cannot be stopped. For a moment or two, it may seem like you've killed them, but back they come over the horizon. Again and again and again.

One of the biggest zombie lies about our national security is that our disastrous invasion of Iraq exists in a bubble and has nothing to do with events in other countries in the region -- like Pakistan. Another zombie lie is that the people who supported this catastrophic diversion are the ones best qualified to decide how to clean up the mess they helped create. Hey, no one ever said zombies are logical.

But to even raise this point is an invitation to be attacked by the Conventional Wisdom zombies.

Just ask Obama campaign advisor David Axelrod. In response to being asked if the Bhutto assassination would benefit Hillary, he told reporters:

"She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq which, we would submit, was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today, so that's a judgment she'll have to defend."

Who could possibly consider this a controversial statement?

The Clinton campaign, for starters. Its spokesman Jay Carson shot back with:

"This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world, and to be concerned for the people of Pakistan and the country's stability. No one should be politicizing this situation with baseless allegations."

Hazarding the opinion that the Iraq war had diverted us from Pakistan and Afghanistan and suggesting that Hillary Clinton should have to defend her judgment to support that war is "politicizing" the situation? She's running for president, isn't she? Of course questions about what happened in Pakistan, what factors contributed to it, and what should we do about it are politicized -- as they should be.

It's no secret why the writers of conventional wisdom get so defensive when these kinds of questions are raised: their opinions helped lead to the war in Iraq, so any time the conventional wisdom is threatened, they rise up in its defense.

Exhibit A came during Obama's appearance yesterday on Meet the Press. Tim Russert, one of the temple guards of Conventional Wisdom, used one of the classic weapons in its defense: the straw man. So in asking Obama about Axelrod's comments, Russert plays the dumb-dumb and twists the argument:

RUSSERT: The Washington Post has said in an editorial that Mr. Obama committed a foul in some of your comments and some of your staff comments to the situation in Pakistan, specifically -- let me ask you a question -- do you believe that Senator Clinton's vote for, for the war in Iraq in any way, shape or form led to the events that transpired in Pakistan on Thursday?

Obama knocks the straw man down:

OBAMA: Of course not, and that's never what any of my aides said...my staff said that I think candidates will be judged based on the judgments they have made, and they made then an indisputable, I believe, comment, although The Washington Post, I think, may disagree with this. And that is that, by going into Iraq, we got distracted from Afghanistan, we got distracted from hunting down bin Laden, we got distracted from dealing with the al-Qaeda havens that have been created in northwestern Pakistan...

Russert, the Conventional Wisdom Zombie, is having none of it:

RUSSERT: But a vote for the war in Iraq, in your mind, distracted us from Pakistan and that could have led to the situation?

Obama takes another stab:

OBAMA: I am not drawing a causal relationship between any single vote in the tragedy there. The, the tragedy resulted from a suicide bomber. But what I do believe is that, if we are going to take seriously the problem of Islamic terrorism and the stability of Pakistan, then we have to look at it in a wider context. What we do in Iraq matters, what we do with respect to Iran matters, what we do with respect to Musharraf matters and not giving him a blank check and conditioning military aid that's not related to terrorism on him opening up the election so that there's greater legitimacy and less anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. Those are all parts of a broader foreign policy, and I believe that I'm best equipped to chart that new direction in foreign policy that will ultimately make American safer.

Will Smith couldn't have blown away that zombie any more effectively. But, make no mistake, it will be back.

In fact, I was going back over some of my old columns and I was struck by one I wrote during the 2004 campaign. It was about how even though the evidence overwhelmingly showed that Bush's policies at home and abroad had made us less safe, the American people believed he was the candidate best able to keep us safe. By a wide margin.

Why would the public think that? Because the Conventional Wisdom zombies kept hammering home the lie, however ludicrous it was -- and is. No matter how many times we've seen this movie, it's still shocking to see how the conventional wisdom is able to repair itself event after event after event that should have by now mortally wounded it.

But, apparently, nothing can kill the idea that those who were the most wrong about Iraq should be listened to most fervently about how to go forward.

I mean, what's next, the New York Times hiring Bill Kristol as a columnist?

Comments

[johntal]

if only more Americans had read their history books about Andrew Jackson and thought about the lessons to be learned.....

[Header]

Oh yeah - forgot to add: How much experience did JFK have before he was elected to the Presidency? 3 terms in the House and 1 term in the Senate. How about Truman? Bush had more experience than Obama has when he lost the election in 2000 to Gore and was "installed" (kinda like a Pope or a Bishop) as President by the Supreme Court. How about Woodrow Wilson?

[gernger]

The biggest lie in this campaign is the one that says a vote for the war powers act was a vote for war. Once the act was passed, the war didn't have to happen. Once the act was passed, the inspectors were allowed back in to go where they wanted, unannounced. He was also going to allow spy planes above his country. Add to the fact that the no fly zones were intact and enforced, Sadaams' hands were tied. There was nothing he could do of a malicious nature. We didn't have to go to war. This is Bush' war, not Hillary's. She wanted the inspectors back in. Arrianna knows this, so every time she says Hillary voted for war she being disingenuous.

[Garvagh]

Brilliant commentary, Arianna! The US squandered tens of thousands of American lives in Vietnam, so that US leaders could try to come up with a cover story allowing an exit that would not be described as a defeat. The idiocy of the Bush administration's Iraq policy is much in the same vein, although clearly there are interests trying to achieve a permanent US military presence in Iraq, to protect Israel and to facilitate oil deals. The huge apparatus attached in one way or another to these dual objectives find their way to rehabilitate the foolish commentators and political leaders who created this national catastrophe.

[cseper]

The Founders of the USA had no idea that the day would come when US politicians and military warlords would be sending the country's young to die in far off lands in illegal and immoral - even criminal - acts of military violence.

[Pjsandiego]

This article is so right. Obama said or did nothing wrong on the Bhutto death and in fact we did take our eye of the ball which has done nothing helpful for Pakistan.

What happened to Russert. He was so out of line on this issue as was he generally with Ron Paules.

I think sometimes that Russert is just trying to be nice to who he thinks is going to win, but he's really lost it lately.

[unclejim]

and also remember what we got last time before you throw away your vote to ron paul or ralf nader
vote democrat
be all you can be and work for peace
sniping doesn't count

[unclejim]

besides , the real zombie is the media OUR airwaves OUR bandwidth is a means of big profit to very few OUR news is what they give us

Jesus is a democrat

[urbanrevolt]

Mall Zombies.

Suburban mall zombies.

I remember, back before the Twin Towers were smashed, how they used to be ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED that liberals were the greatest threat to America... Then they blamed Clinton. Then they scoffed about Global Warming, and invaded Iraq for having weapons they didn't have, and doing something to the Towers, which they didn't do.

The greatest threat to America is the people who are "Keeping an informed public."

Our public schools are a smashing success, even the very worst of them, compared to the television media.

[spmosher]

These are the very reasons that Ron Paul's foreign policy of non-interference (separation for you Paul spinners). We are now seeing decades of political influence and power play, money and weapon infusions, and out right interference in a foreign government come to pass.

We should maintain our absolutely vital national interests, withdraw most of our foreign intervention and interference in other nations, and align ourselves with few nations, if any, unless asked, and it benefits the country as a whole and is constitutionally approved.

We are now fighting an endless illegal war, and charging this war on credit.. even worsening our problems and our children's future.

And all of this out of a fear created by the very people who are in power now. Irrational fear and help create irrational people, which is what we have now.

This is why we need Ron Paul. Or anyone but a morally and politically self-centered republican, leading us into a fascist state.

[trosa]

One has to decide that they will no longer listen to the Zombie. You must decide that the Zombie does not exist, therefore cutting off its power of persuasion and ability to influence.
I cannot trust the media to define the candidates since the media is useless in their reporting. Forget the zombies! We have all fallen down the rabbit hole.
"Conventional Wisdom" is the bullshit we have been fed for centuries. Those who believe what they hear when they know the truth to be otherwise are the ones that should be held accountable. My son volunteered to serve and has been to Iraq. He has informed me that it is impossible to withdraw troops in a single pass. It is too convoluted and volatile to think we could get out that way. As such I am inclined to see the HRC position that says that she will work hard to withdraw troops but knows it will not happen over night and will have to be done methodically and responsibly. She knows that there will be a US presence in the middle east for a time to come. It will be that way for any president who inherits this mess. That sounds like the voice of reason. I am listening and she is saying what needs to be said not what we necessarily want to hear. She did not get us into this war, the false evidence presented to both houses did that. Not even Joe Biden knew it. Barack Obama certainly didn't.
Any one of these candidates, should they win, will not be president long enough to see this issue resolved. At this point it is a matter of who can stop the bleeding domestically, who will move us closer to a resolution with the middle east, and who will regain our position of economic strength globally.
Which super hero from the Justice League will use their super powers to achieve that task? Every super hero has a vulnerability.
AND FOR THE RECORD YOU CAN ONLY KILL A ZOMBIE BY CUTTING OFF IT'S HEAD!

[Overd0g]

Yes, the war has had effects on the region. Besides the oft sited negative consequences, there is also the abandonment of nuclear arming efforts by Libya and Iran. To say we are less safe because of the Iraq war is silly, simply because we have no idea what the world would be like if it hadn't happened.

[Tsunami]

Timmy Russert asked Obama the TIMID questions. Tim wants Obama to win the primary so he (Tim and his media pals) can continue to beat up on Clinton. No way can the O win a general election. Tim and the gang are part of the Repugnant party's plan to stop Clinton during the primaries.

[mjc]

Just for the record, if Obama does come in first in Iowa it will not be because the Iowan Democrats chose him over the other two. Independents can vote in primaries in Iowa...apparently. And I grew up thinking primaries were a way for a party to winnow down candidates to represent the party in a general election. While vague references to "CHANGE" and touting one's leadership qualities might have some influence on "independe­nts"...rea­d either young or politically unimpressed elders...parties usually rely on those who know the ropes in an election and know the policies of the party. It is a way of choosing certain ideas over no particular ideas.

[certainot]

the most effective tool for steering conventional wisdom in american politics has been the GOP talk radio monopoly.

the limits of what can and can't be said on mainstream print and TV have been largely determined with 20 years of republican talk radio. the record is clear.

while political junkies and activists and strategists pay attention to the broders and russerts their audiences are elite and minor compared to the 50-70MIL that get talk radio- 95% of which is republican. they may go into more detail on particular subjects but their words do not carry weight outside of their relatively small audiences.

edward's haircut wouldn't get a mention by the russerts or broders or, yes, on PBS with gwinn ifill, if it hadn't been blasted across the country for days before and turned into a convenient one-liner for lazy analysts looking for a quick laugh. the russerts and broders and mathews are often very dependent on that media bandwagon that limbaugh and co pull for them whether they know it or not. they may read it in a rundown of left and right talking points, but the groundwork for those talking points is often done on talk radio.

when mainstream media employees step out of line, if their establishment employers don't stop them then they get attacks from limbaugh hannity and co and their employers get the message from thousands of zombie dittoheads. dan rather was a good example, but i wonder if he even knows where the body blows were coming from. he probably listens to music when he's driving.