|
There is desperation in the
air
Chicago Tribune By Michael Tackett the Tribune's Washington Bureau chief September 3, 2006 You know the White House is getting nervous when the president of the United States starts dropping the "f-bomb." And not just him. We've heard it from Vice President Dick Cheney and from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, among others. So there's not much doubt that this is part of a plan. Few administrations have perfected the notion of a drumbeat better than those in Bush 43. You won't have to cover the children's ears when you talk about this "f-bomb," but there will be a need for some explanation. It's not every day, you know, when you come face to face with the threat of a fascist. The word has resonance with Americans of a certain age, schooled that Italy's Benito Mussolini, Germany's Adolf Hitler and Spain's Francisco Franco were first-team-all-fascist. But Bush now is casting a much wider aspersion that includes those whom he decries broadly as "Islamic extremists." It is an interesting gambit, using the echoes of World War II to win approval during the war on terror. The pivot from "extremists" to "fascists" suggests that "extremist" wasn't cutting it in terms of ringing the voters' chimes and summoning support for the war in Iraq, which the president continues to say is the epicenter of the global war on terror. There is increasing evidence that a majority of Americans no longer agree with how the president connects those dots, or his success in fighting either battle. The more right-leaning members of the conservative movement have been pushing the language "Islamo-fascist" for at least a couple of years, as though demonizing an entire people somehow makes the argument more powerful. They clearly hoped that their term of art would take hold in a broader public square. And eventually, they succeeded. The president, in a speech following the arrest of terrorist suspects in Britain, dialed back that terminology to "Islamic fascists." Editing can be such a subtle art. Rumsfeld, a master of rhetoric and parsing, joined Bush in the fascist bashing, and he added another World War II-era concept of appeasement in a speech to the American Legion convention last week. So now those who don't agree with the administration are fascist appeasers. Things are indeed getting ugly. It seems the term fascist would go down more easily if they could name an actual leader in control of an actual country, perhaps leading a daily goose step or two, but that's clearly being hypertechnical. Maybe someone will cue the old Al Qaeda training videos from Afghanistan. Or Osama bin Laden will again pop up with another diatribe against the United States. Not so technical--indeed quite obvious and literal--is that the president wants the midterm elections to be driven by a focus on the war, with the Democrats cast in the role of appeasers. Will that tactic work again? It worked well in 2002 when Republicans made gains in midterm elections, and it most certainly worked in 2004 when the president's campaign pummeled John Kerry and other Democrats on national security. It goes to a long-held, core perception of Democrats--at least since Vietnam--that they are soft on national defense. For years, Democrats have offered a rather impotent defense, winning elections when voters cared more about their pocketbooks than their personal safety. Democrats now openly challenge the president. They draw clear distinctions between Iraq and the war on terrorism, and argue that all the money, troops and attention in Iraq actually undermine the fight against terrorism. They argue that the administration has mismanaged the war and call for Rumsfeld to step down. Bush's focus on security will be seen again and again during the Sept. 11 commemoratives in the next few weeks. Inescapably, the moment will be used to reinforce the broader message about the president and Republicans as the better protectors. But this will be the first major Election Day across the country since the public mood so demonstrably soured on Iraq, the war on terror and Bush's job performance. Most Republicans expect to suffer losses and erosion in their already spare majority in Congress. The issue might be whether the use of fascists can stop the bleeding. mtackett@tribune.com Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune Commentary: |