I like your analogy about the dysfunctional relationship. I don't agree, of course, but it's a very good statement of the leftie position. One line in a speech, which represents

Hm, something happened with that comment. Damn Safari. Anyway, the thrust of my windmill-tilting: I won't argue with the "Bush lied" meme, because it's taken hold in the fertile soil of the mass media and there's no uprooting a meme. But the Dems are slowly but surely killing themselves in 2004. No way is Bush going to lose over "issues" (yes, those are scare quotes) such as this.

Well, in a way, that's what I was saying. That's why it depresses me. This lie is a trifle, a joke, a whiff of the shithouse. It's shocking enough stuff in the hothouse of diplomatic politesse (shithouse, hothouse), but the intentions and the capabilities have been there for all to see since the summer of 2000.

Bush hasn't actually been all that clever about cloaking his real intentions, although he was fairly coy about just how hamfisted he'd be. I sort of thought he'd be a little more Charlton Heston, a little less Jack Palance. I didn't expect that twinkle of madness in the eye, these off-the-cuff quotes where he's just got things wrong ("I know Saddam let the inspectors in. Are you gonna call him on it?"), or where he's just... you know... "Bring 'em on"? Did he say "Bring 'em on"?!

But what do you know? America seems to like the rough stuff. Everybody likes a big, strong man around. Makes 'em feel safe. Guy like that's got a lotta charisma. Confidence. You believe a guy like that, and, hey, if he says it, he must believe it. He's too dumb to lie! He cashes the paycheck, flips us a twenty, then takes the rest to the casino, and we thank him for it! "It's your money, baby!" He's pissed off all the neighbors, all our credit cards are maxed out, the house gets vandalized nightly, we can't even walk down the street without getting dogs sicced on us, but hey--he's standin' tall!

But I think the point you were getting at in reference to my admittedly lame, therapy-speak metaphor was this: We liberals just sit back and sadly shake our heads condescendingly at the poor, stupid electorate, waiting for them to come to their senses. And the electorate feels that condescension. It feels like elitism! "Those damn elite liberals! They ought to couch their views in the same chauvinistic, chest-puffing, brain-dimming sound bites that all my favorite pundits use! Why, if they could make their views appeal to my social biases and short-sighted selfishness, I just might vote for them!"

But you know what? That sounds to me like the soft bigotry of low expectations. Wake the fuck up, America. Look at what your government has done in the name of corporate interests for the past 60 years. D-Day was a long time ago, and most of you have never even seen the beaches of Normandy, much less stormed them with two boots and a gun, so you can take off the white cowboy hats. We hopped in the 20th century's driver's seat and, with the fig-leaf of ideological war against an Evil Empire, bent history to the will of American corporations. Granted, most of us citizens are none the wiser or richer, and as a nation we're certainly not on a par with the worst of the European imperialists, or the Romans, or the Mongols, but still: You wonder why half the world hates you and the other half is rolling its eyes? Because your president told you to support freedom by going shopping!

So what "issues" should I lay out? What mealy-mouthed compromises on health insurance, public education, human rights, and the like should I seem willing to discuss with the various controlling interests? What slogans, what market-tested, made-for-TV zingers should I whip out that will turn the current tide?

For now, let me just say generally that I'd like to see a candidate espouse government as a protector of the average citizen against overwhelming, organized, financial power. Anything less than that, and government becomes antithetical to what I thought the Constitution stands for. It becomes a bulwark against the citizenry, acting only to protect and expand the power of the wealthy. Period. And that is what I believe George W. Bush and the vast, motherfucking right-wing conspiracy is working towards.

Wow - rip-roaring comment there. This is going to take some time to respond to.

I certainly agree with some of what you say. But I think a critical distinction has to be made between Bush's domestic policy and his foreign policy, because they appeal to different people.

On Bush's domestic policy, I'm mostly with you. He's terrible on the environment and worse on the deficit. The tax cut is asinine. Ashcroft is a damn evangelistic corpse. The war on drugs is an unmitigated disaster. The whole faith-based thing makes me want to puke. Media consolidation scares me. But I would take issue with this:

"We hopped in the 20th century's driver's seat and, with the fig-leaf of ideological war against an Evil Empire, bent history to the will of American corporations." Actually, I wouldn't take issue; I think you're exactly right, and it's a very good thing. The American corporation is single-handedly responsible for our standard of living today. We would not be nearly as well-off if not for the legal innovation of the corporate person - it allows for risk-taking and investment on scales previously unheard of. Corporations are single-minded entities that have one job: to make money. They are very good at that job, and we all benefit, through employment, tax revenue, public investment, and cheap consumer goods. Sure, some get out of control, but I agree with you that the role of government is to set the boundaries of permissible behavior, on the part of individuals and corporations. It's not a corporation's job to moderate its behavior, because if it does that, it loses its focus and is less efficient.

OK, sidetrack over, let me get back to the original dichotomy: domestic vs. foreign policy. Essentially, for me as well as for a lot of ex-liberals (that still makes me cringe), the overriding issue is terrorism. Did you read Ed Koch's editorial the other day in the NY Post? It was a very good description of this set of beliefs. Terrorism isn't actually the disease; it's the symptom. The unarguable fact is that there are millions of people out there right now who want to kill each and every one of us for religious reasons. These people cannot be reasoned with, for they believe that their God is on their side, and if they die serving God, they go to heaven. These people now have the ability and the will to kill us here, in the US. They must be stopped. I'm not talking about killing them before they kill us, though in certain circumstances that will have to happen. I'm talking about a comprehensive policy that is designed to eliminate the most imminent threats, and reduce the threats that are pending.

There's no doubt that people will vote on that issue. I hate to bring it up, but 9/11 will dominate the elections of 2004. It overrides any domestic concerns we might have; what good is education, health care, or anything else if you're dead? There is abundant evidence that we face a real threat, and that something must be done. Afghanistan and Iraq were a good start. Now, regime change is needed in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Not by force - I'm not proposing more invasions - but by slow, constant pressure and ideological support for dissidents.

Given the current lackluster field of Democrats, Bush wins in a landslide, because of the terrorism issue. Until Democrats overcome the perception that they're soft on national security, they will lose as long as we face external threats.

First of all, sorry for the delay in commenting. Wrapping up the work week, then a weekend with the toddler--you understand. Now, assuming you actually find your way back to this particular string....

Based on your last post, I don't think we disagree on much: not domestically, and only by degrees on foreign policy. I certainly want to be safe from terrorism, and I don't even disagree that we need to take the fight to the terrorists. I think we did that in Afghanistan, although evidence is growing that it wasn't very thorough and that the follow-through left much to be desired. Time will tell. Events in Iraq are now top-of-mind, and things don't look so hot there, either. In addition, since I don't think Iraq had much to do with current terrorist activity, I don't think unseating Saddam did much to deter it, and it's done much to inflame regional resentment of us. Plus, whatever PR value there was in showing that we can kick some ass is evaporating with the demonstration that we can't subsequently control the ass, once kicked.

Certainly there's something to be said for our having come nearly two years without anything else happening. A theory of mine is that al Qaeda--or whomever--can't afford to stage a less-spectacular action. As long as the awesome power of 9/11 burns in our minds, their psychological power is greater. Slim comfort, though.

I oppose the Bush administration's actions in the name of our security because I believe--and I've seen evidence--that Bush's people saw opportunities presented by 9/11 more attractive than simply ensuring that it didn't happen again. The policies being pursued are a continuation and amplification of the true source of this brand of terrorism.

You are correct that we have the corporate model to thank for our standard of living. We agree that government's role should be to "set the boundaries of permissible behavior." But it is in this role that the U.S. government lapses too often, resulting in the resentments that breed terrorism. Our government is slow enough to respond to our own citizens' needs for corporate regulation. When citizens of other countries demand limits on American corporations' power, our government responds with force against them--or relies on sympathetic regimes to do it for us.

I agree that for corporations to focus on anything but profit reduces their efficiency. But that focus becomes much more nuanced when they don't have government/military muscle to back them up, and the government imposes boundaries and penalties upon a pursuit of profit that tramples the rights of individuals--not to mention the health of the earth itself.

Why do terrorists hate us? Because our government has not played abroad the role that it grudgingly plays at home in curtailing the voraciousness of the corporate entity. We support via free and democratic elections a government that lends the power of the strongest military in history to the imperatives of corporations pursuing profit without limits. (There are also ideological interests, disagreements, and hatreds on both sides, but I think this is the crux of it.)

You are probably correct that the people who are terrorists are beyond peace and reason. The way to isolate and defeat them is by building consensus with the people in those regions who want merely to live, work, and raise children under the god and leaders of their choosing. Saddam was not of their choosing, I know, but the seeds of the Bush administration's failures there (so far) result from not understanding the people and the fact that Iraqi freedom was secondary to other goals, neither of which bodes well.

What we are seeing is the deployment of an activist ideology that appeals to decent Americans (security! democracy!) and dovetails with American corporate interests. Nothing new here, or even particularly evil--we don't want to kill Iraqis; if they'd take a liking to our way of life, we could all get rich together. The audience at home does pity the pawns who get in our way, but we're "defending freedom," and must not be deterred. This is blind, arrogant, ignorant of several of history's lessons, and sure to spread more hatred.

I think that, rather than offering us long-term security, Mr. Bush's policies instead promise endless military and financial commitments in a region where we are hated, and--contrary to our stated goals--more, not less, terrorism. The terrorists are showing us the limits of American power. We can debate about what are reasonable limits, but, if we accept none, we will continue to have terrorists even if our armies control the entire world. How many soldiers died today?