The Problem with Shock and Awe

The world's indifference to the ongoing genocide in Darfur will be parsed and studied for years to come. After all, Sudan's holocaust emerges in an era when Hotel Rwanda and Schindler's List are top-grossing entertainment, and, unlike Rwanda, the genocide in Darfur has lasted for years, not months. In its fifth year of crisis, Darfur is dying a senselessly protracted death, complete with the false sanctuary of refugee camps and a lingering mirage of international assistance.

This column is not about Darfur. Instead, it is about the national discourse that surrounds unfolding historical events. Foreign policy idealists have long called for a multilateral intervention in Sudan backed by the full strength of the United States military, but such an intervention would, of course, divert crucial resources away from another humanitarian crisis--one that our country is directly responsible for.

Divisive political issues, such as Darfur, demands to be addressed by someone who grasps the full nuances and particularities of each side of the argument. Ann Coulter, mercifully, rises to the occasion.

"If you're looking for a good definition of 'no imminent threat,' Darfur is it. . . . These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever--and they still haven't finished. . . . Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?"

Coulter has raised a valid, even timeworn, point--that countries should only pursue foreign policy agendas that are in its own self-interest--but you would never know it. In the competition for mainstream media attention, it has become conventional wisdom to couple levelheaded arguments with incendiary rhetoric. Just look at Ann Coulter, who has built an entire career out of generating media firestorms for her hateful invective.

Or, if you happen to be a conservative, you might say: just look at Michael Moore.

That's right, Michael Moore. In a bizarre manifestation of our need to find a yin for every yang, Michael Moore has somehow been pinpointed as the left-wing Ann Coulter. A controversial liberal if there ever was one, Moore sounds like a pretty vile and despicable figure from the way conservatives, moderates, and even some liberals talk about him. You would think he spent his days demanding federal assistance for immigrants trying to illegally cross the border, or making children cry because they prayed in school.

Surely, his most outrageous statement must have run along the lines of, "In the history of the nation, there has never been a political party as ridiculous as today's Republicans. It's as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting bloc." Or maybe, "Conservatism was established to allow unattractive men easier access to the mainstream of society." Now that's just mean.

Of course, both of these statements were originally said, in modified form, by Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, respectively. The liberal version of right-wing extremism turns out to be little more than calls for impeachment of the sitting President and, at worst, the insinuation that some aspects of democratic socialism--you know, like the one they have in most of Europe--may not be all that bad. At the very, very fringe, you might find one or two demands for slavery reparations, but that's rare.

The idea that Michael Moore's brand of anti-President, pro-socialized medicine (read: anti-Bush, pro-universal health care) extremism somehow balances out Coulter, Limbaugh, Falwell, O'Reilly, et al. on the right is indicative of a fundamental disconnect between the progressive movement and the American center. Conservative extremism, in general, is more readily tolerated than liberal extremism. Call a feminist a "feminazi" and you will find a national audience that silently, if not proudly, agrees with you. America, by and large, is a fundamentally conservative country.

The tide is turning, somewhat. In 2003, the decision to invade Iraq was supported by three out of four Americans. The erosion of that support has come at the cost of almost 4,000 American lives, not to mention, of course, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives. Rational people of all political stripes have awoken to the fact that the decision to invade Iraq was illegal under the standards of international law, and founded upon false claims perpetrated by the Bush administration.

Mainstream support for withdrawal may be growing, but certainly not because our country is getting any fonder of progressivism. And maybe that's a good thing. The right-wing tactic of galvanizing by emotion--tapping into the public's most instinctual fears and prejudices--will never work for progressives. No amount of incendiary rhetoric can galvanize the public like a good old rational argument can.

So what a step back this week has been.

As of this morning, the search string "General Betray Us" returns almost 700 hits on Google News. "Cooking the books for the White House," the subheading of the now infamous ad, returns 455 hits. From the Wall Street Journal to the Los Angeles Times, every major newspaper has had at least one turn at the punching bag.

"Execrable," proclaims Rolling Stone, in a blog post that rivals their review of Gigli.

"It's hard to decide which was the more disgusting," sneers the New York Post, before getting a jibe at both MoveOn and, bizarrely, Hillary Clinton (who suppresses her middle-of-the-road tendencies just long enough to call the controversy what it really is: a "political sideshow").

The advertisement's most substantive claim--that "the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence"--go completely unreported in all Google News sources, save for a single entry in the Baltimore Sun's political blog. Phrases such as "deaths by car bombs," "assassinations only count," "more American soldier deaths," and "neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed" are nowhere to be found in any mainstream reports about the ad.

Political discourse is depressing enough without progressive groups relying on sensationalist tactics to draw attention to their claims. Incendiary rhetoric is a right-wing luxury in a right-wing country--and let them have it. Progressives, especially the progressives of my generation, must lead the way in stating our case, calmly and dispassionately, imparting arguments based solely on rational analysis and factual evidence. We might not make the news for our exaggerations and eviscerations, but we just might make the news for being sane.

Comments

[Qbear]

Frank,

You are a college sophomore,,,if you don't have PASSION right now....you aren't going to like middle age, son.

[Qbear]

dispassionate progressives ...could it be any limper?

I might be a lot older but I wouldn't trade being an anti war freak and a radical queer, for being labled sane.

[dadw5boys]

REMEMBER ONE THING!
Free men have the responsibility to question power anytime and anywhere.
Slave bow to power.
Decide to be free men or slaves.
Democrates or Republicans it is that simple!
Read "Broken Government" by John Dean, possible the most important insider book ever written to help Americans save America.

[toomuchtolose]

Am I missing something here? It sounds like you are suggesting the right-wingers have an edge because of the manner in which they convey their ideas, when it seems to me their "edge" is that the MSM gives them as much air time as they want and refuse to even acknowledge the views of serious progressives and/or liberals.

[FlowerGirl]

I have made a study of various perceptions of terrorism. The unanimous opinion for the purpose of the violence is "Shock and Awe." So who is the world's leading terrorist?

[jeskiley]

Oh, and don't forget the whole idea of Passion.

[jeskiley]

Bravo! Bravo! and Bravo! I appreciate how you clarified the communication styles of conservatives and liberals, what a relief!

"The right-wing tactic of galvanizing by emotion--tapping into the public's most instinctual fears and prejudices--will never work for progressives. No amount of incendiary rhetoric can galvanize the public like a good old rational argument can."

However, I think the liberals taint their rational arguments with too much "personal opinion" and banding together with "others who'd agree". Conservatives are skilled at speaking through core values, and progressives aren't fluent in that language, other than where "justice" is concerned. Progressives could galvanize by emotion equally well, if they'd only put some faith into the truths the conservatives use as their backbone.

Rational arguments will hit home when trust is put into the communication value of ideas like honor, sacrifice, legion, faith, forgiveness. Conservatives and liberals stand apart due to a pitiful language barrier, but the stinger is that the conservatives expect liberals to meet them where THEY are. It goes against their own internal authority, and the higher authority they answer to, to lay the path before the liberals. Maybe the progressives can get to work on that.

[mamacat]

Mr. Lin, you write as if you care more about the issues than you care about pushing people's hot buttons. Good for you.

Sometimes I think along similar lines. It seems as if Americans would rather have good looking incompetents leading them than they would boring competents. Perhaps the decline in our educational system is partly the reason. Also, too much news system controlled by too few rich people doesn't help the political process.

I have the feeling that if a Democrat were president right now, and if that Democrat committed a few thousand American troops to be part of a multi-national force to save lives in Darfur, the Republicans would be screaming their heads off that the Democrat was risking lives and wasting money on something that did not affect American (corporate) interests. Being able to see what is in the long term interests of America and the world is not a Republican strong point, unfortuneately.

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

Frank, another excellently written, poignant article - thank you.

I disagree with you on one point. That we must be 'dispassionate'. I think that it is perfectly acceptable, and perhaps socially imperative, that we be passionate - but let us be passionate about rational and factual evidence. As long as it does not cloud our judgment and the acceptance of reason and fact - passion is a drive that is necessary to human interaction lest we all become robots. It is passion that allows us to appreciate, even creates, what is most important to us - the importance of each other.

[Spookcatcher]

Don't fret too much, because Africa is going to be on the Foriegn Policy (invasion/occupation) list for American Fascists soon. After we get the Oil concessions in Iraq, and bases built there, and contractors safely imbedded, we will be poised for Iran regime change. tehn of course we will turn our unabashed expansion full scale into Africa and confront China and probably Russia again to take over Africas vast underdeveloped resources. While the Gates, Clinton, Oprah, and other big names provide humanitarian cover till we can position the military industrial complex. Did't you get your copy of the itinarary from the Office of Military Intelligence Tour Guide?

[1will]

Why don't you guys just call yourselves Liberals and stop running from the title? Using the term Progressive doesn't fool anyone.

[uscitizen]

Or how about just "sane" as compared to the insanity that seems to rule the country right now?

[tcagle]

Call 911, another Repube is flatlining! _^__^__^____^_______________________

[dadw5boys]

1will,
If your going to continue to belive the Republican Party Line then read one book.
Broken Government, by a fellow Republican John Dean.
Then we will see you back here as a fellow Liberial who belives thaat our country is more important then the wealthy in it!

[BillZBubb]

I liked the MoveOn ad. It was effective. The fact that the usual right wing nutjobs got "offended" by it is a good thing. It got the subject of Petraeus' credibility in the discourse. That would never have happened with your approach of reasoned argument.

The right wing controls the airwaves and most of the major media. They decide what gets discussed. MoveOn forced them to discuss Petraeus and his motivations. That's a good thing.

[standupnow]

Excellent defense of Michael Moore. The only thing I grant to critics is that I don't consider his work "traditional documentary" but rather "provacative video editorials and advocacy." I am disgusted by pseudo-repentant war cheerleaders like Andrew Sullivan (who has his "Moore Award" for excess on the left) and the mainstream media's typically dismissive attitude toward Moore. The fact is that Michael Moore is frequently entertaining, thought-provoking, and quite often quite right.

Beware further steps backward: those same "3 out of 4 Americans" (and their elected representatives, and the corporate media) who supported this predictably disasterous, immoral, illegal, unprovoked war and occupation of Iraq -- what is their response to the war mongering towards Iran? So far I do not find the public or media or elected opposition to a war with Iran comforting or impressive. Will the American people be so gullible again? Will the Bush crime family poll ratings bounce back as the US moves closer to launching shock and awe, part II, against Iran?