<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Our ongoing environmental and economic setbacks are the successes of the current administration’s co]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by bookerly http://www.grist.org/article/the-monkey-thing-is-just-an-act-and-its-irrelevant-anyway/ Mon, 03 Jul 2006 12:25:10 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-monkey-thing-is-just-an-act-and-its-irrelevant-anyway/1 Great Post!


    I am not sure I completely agree with this, but it certainly has a lot of good points that I need to consider.  All this time, I've been calling Bush a moron, and I'm doing the wrong thing!!

   Sigh.  Time for me to sit down and rethink my own use of language about the man and his movement.

   Thanks so much,

patrick

]]> Great Post!


    I am not sure I completely agree with this, but it certainly has a lot of good points that I need to consider.  All this time, I've been calling Bush a moron, and I'm doing the wrong thing!!

   Sigh.  Time for me to sit down and rethink my own use of language about the man and his movement.

   Thanks so much,

patrick

]]> Comment #2 by Stentor http://www.grist.org/article/the-monkey-thing-is-just-an-act-and-its-irrelevant-anyway/ Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:13:20 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-monkey-thing-is-just-an-act-and-its-irrelevant-anyway/2 Wrong

I think Lakoff has bought into the GOP's own rhetoric at the expense of seeing its actual agenda. The fact is the Republicans are not committed to reducing the size of the government as an end in itself. (Heck, just ask Grover Norquist himself, who is happy to use the GOP but increasingly frustrated with its recalcitrance.)

The GOP's agenda is twofold: to enrich the upper class, and to set up a moral hierarchy that punishes people who don't conform to certain notions of propriety and obedience. If big government is necessary for those goals, they will happily enlarge government (see corporate welfare and the flag-burning and marriage amendments). If smaller government serves those goals (undercutting environmental protection and welfare), they'll shrink government.

"Small government" is an innocent-sounding procedural cloak that the GOP pulls over its real agenda. If progressives are serious about framing, the first thing we need to do is to stop letting the GOP get away with calling itself the party of small government.

]]> Wrong

I think Lakoff has bought into the GOP's own rhetoric at the expense of seeing its actual agenda. The fact is the Republicans are not committed to reducing the size of the government as an end in itself. (Heck, just ask Grover Norquist himself, who is happy to use the GOP but increasingly frustrated with its recalcitrance.)

The GOP's agenda is twofold: to enrich the upper class, and to set up a moral hierarchy that punishes people who don't conform to certain notions of propriety and obedience. If big government is necessary for those goals, they will happily enlarge government (see corporate welfare and the flag-burning and marriage amendments). If smaller government serves those goals (undercutting environmental protection and welfare), they'll shrink government.

"Small government" is an innocent-sounding procedural cloak that the GOP pulls over its real agenda. If progressives are serious about framing, the first thing we need to do is to stop letting the GOP get away with calling itself the party of small government.

]]> Comment #3 by Stentor http://www.grist.org/article/the-monkey-thing-is-just-an-act-and-its-irrelevant-anyway/ Tue, 04 Jul 2006 10:16:50 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-monkey-thing-is-just-an-act-and-its-irrelevant-anyway/3 Right

I do, however, agree that the "incompetence" framing is a loser.

]]> Right

I do, however, agree that the "incompetence" framing is a loser.

]]> Comment #4 by makeswell http://www.grist.org/article/the-monkey-thing-is-just-an-act-and-its-irrelevant-anyway/ Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:03:57 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-monkey-thing-is-just-an-act-and-its-irrelevant-anyway/4 "Incompetence" depends on point of view

Are we defining the Administration's success by its ability to increase national security, to bolster our international reputation, to spread "democracy" around the globe, to grow our economy across all demographics and industry sectors, and to protect US citizens' liberties?  If so, then the Administration certainly appears "incompetent," and quite possibly appears intentionally negligent.

Most likely, however, none of these metrics are what the Administration uses in order to measure success.  The definition of success in this Administration's perspective is bettered defined by the following question:  Are the finanicial supporters of the Administration being given a return on their investment?

To the extent that George Bush and his Administration can answer this qusestion in the affirmative will be the degree to which they see themselves not only as competent but as highly successful.  Think about the most generous supporters and the MASSIVE amount of capital that has been rapidly shifted (and on a sole source no-bid contract basis) back to their bank accounts.  Think of the big Oil companies and the (Carlyle Group funded) defense contractors of the world who stood to gain (and have gained quite a bit) with justified (or otherwise) war somewhere in the middle east.  If anything, finding Osama would only justify pulling our troops out earlier and a drop in future oil prices...

I'm new to blogging so I don't know if its kosher to reference "The Daily Show" (June 14th show) as a news source, but Jon S expressed shock the other day (albiet sarcastically) that someone like George Tenet, who said the existence of WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk, earned a Presidential medal of freedom. http://www.medaloffreedom.com/GeorgeTenet.htm But is it any wonder he did?  Was George being measured on his ability to provide for the nation's security or his ability (and sacrifice of his career) to provide key ingredients in the recipe for transfering wealth to the oil and defense industries?  I would guess the latter.

This suggests to me that this Administration is not only competent but quite brilliant at achieving its goals.

]]> "Incompetence" depends on point of view

Are we defining the Administration's success by its ability to increase national security, to bolster our international reputation, to spread "democracy" around the globe, to grow our economy across all demographics and industry sectors, and to protect US citizens' liberties?  If so, then the Administration certainly appears "incompetent," and quite possibly appears intentionally negligent.

Most likely, however, none of these metrics are what the Administration uses in order to measure success.  The definition of success in this Administration's perspective is bettered defined by the following question:  Are the finanicial supporters of the Administration being given a return on their investment?

To the extent that George Bush and his Administration can answer this qusestion in the affirmative will be the degree to which they see themselves not only as competent but as highly successful.  Think about the most generous supporters and the MASSIVE amount of capital that has been rapidly shifted (and on a sole source no-bid contract basis) back to their bank accounts.  Think of the big Oil companies and the (Carlyle Group funded) defense contractors of the world who stood to gain (and have gained quite a bit) with justified (or otherwise) war somewhere in the middle east.  If anything, finding Osama would only justify pulling our troops out earlier and a drop in future oil prices...

I'm new to blogging so I don't know if its kosher to reference "The Daily Show" (June 14th show) as a news source, but Jon S expressed shock the other day (albiet sarcastically) that someone like George Tenet, who said the existence of WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk, earned a Presidential medal of freedom. http://www.medaloffreedom.com/GeorgeTenet.htm But is it any wonder he did?  Was George being measured on his ability to provide for the nation's security or his ability (and sacrifice of his career) to provide key ingredients in the recipe for transfering wealth to the oil and defense industries?  I would guess the latter.

This suggests to me that this Administration is not only competent but quite brilliant at achieving its goals.

]]> Comment #5 by bookerly http://www.grist.org/article/the-monkey-thing-is-just-an-act-and-its-irrelevant-anyway/ Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:24:05 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-monkey-thing-is-just-an-act-and-its-irrelevant-anyway/5 Further ambivalence...


    I think I was mostly attracted to the part about needing to be careful that we don't get the case in 2008 for a "competent conservative" (McCain anyone?).

    On further thought.....

    Lakoff has oversimplified the issue.  Clearly, destroying US prestige around the world (and thus the ability to get our way) as well as weakening "brand America" was not the Administration's goal.  Nor was getting stuck in losing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  There are issues of competence involved.

    In terms of crippling the government to force it to be ineffective in providing aid to people is an interesting argument.  It is dangerous, though, because it suggests that people will draw the conclusion that the conservatives want (government won't help, I'm on my own) and not others (liberals did a better job of helping people when times were tough).

    It opens the door to loss of power.  Even though Bush is not running again, the people behind him want to hold on to power.  To that extent, both Katrina and foreign policy have hurt them.

    Presidents tend to care about long term success (they don't want to be Hoover, they want to be Lincoln).  Ask Mrs. Reagan (during her term, she sponsored many initiatives towards helping her husband secure a reasonable place in history).  

    Making fun of Bush's competence does not need to be seperated from attacking his ideology.  It is possible to be inclusive and do both at the same time!

patrick

]]> Further ambivalence...


    I think I was mostly attracted to the part about needing to be careful that we don't get the case in 2008 for a "competent conservative" (McCain anyone?).

    On further thought.....

    Lakoff has oversimplified the issue.  Clearly, destroying US prestige around the world (and thus the ability to get our way) as well as weakening "brand America" was not the Administration's goal.  Nor was getting stuck in losing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  There are issues of competence involved.

    In terms of crippling the government to force it to be ineffective in providing aid to people is an interesting argument.  It is dangerous, though, because it suggests that people will draw the conclusion that the conservatives want (government won't help, I'm on my own) and not others (liberals did a better job of helping people when times were tough).

    It opens the door to loss of power.  Even though Bush is not running again, the people behind him want to hold on to power.  To that extent, both Katrina and foreign policy have hurt them.

    Presidents tend to care about long term success (they don't want to be Hoover, they want to be Lincoln).  Ask Mrs. Reagan (during her term, she sponsored many initiatives towards helping her husband secure a reasonable place in history).  

    Making fun of Bush's competence does not need to be seperated from attacking his ideology.  It is possible to be inclusive and do both at the same time!

patrick

]]> Comment #6 by ffletcher http://www.grist.org/article/the-monkey-thing-is-just-an-act-and-its-irrelevant-anyway/ Wed, 05 Jul 2006 15:15:48 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-monkey-thing-is-just-an-act-and-its-irrelevant-anyway/6 I knew competence and you sir, are not competent

Less than 6 weeks ago Lloyd Bensen died, the man you dared question Dan Quayle's assertion that he, Quayle, was very much like President Kennedy by saying to Senator Quayle in the 1988 VP debate "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine, Senator, you're no Jack Kenndey"

Well I know commpetence.  Competence does not tear up a country and then leave it a mess for three years going on infinity with little hope for even getting the lights back on for another 5 or more years, let alone water.  It took Truman less than three year to re-supply Japan.

Competence in administration is not continuing the building of more and more nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers to fight battles with super powers that no longer exist.  Competence would build up those skills to re-build and re-store.

Competence in making this land of the free and home of the brave is not by holding people without charging them under due process, nor monitoring everyones' every move, nor making laws out of fear that take away our freedoms.  Free people who are brave will not trade their liberty or that of its citizens out of fear.

No, competence is about doing that that is good and doing such things well.  It is not doing that that is bad and the doing of such bad things well.

This is the double speak that we have all heard.  It is not competent, it is a trick.

]]> I knew competence and you sir, are not competent

Less than 6 weeks ago Lloyd Bensen died, the man you dared question Dan Quayle's assertion that he, Quayle, was very much like President Kennedy by saying to Senator Quayle in the 1988 VP debate "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine, Senator, you're no Jack Kenndey"

Well I know commpetence.  Competence does not tear up a country and then leave it a mess for three years going on infinity with little hope for even getting the lights back on for another 5 or more years, let alone water.  It took Truman less than three year to re-supply Japan.

Competence in administration is not continuing the building of more and more nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers to fight battles with super powers that no longer exist.  Competence would build up those skills to re-build and re-store.

Competence in making this land of the free and home of the brave is not by holding people without charging them under due process, nor monitoring everyones' every move, nor making laws out of fear that take away our freedoms.  Free people who are brave will not trade their liberty or that of its citizens out of fear.

No, competence is about doing that that is good and doing such things well.  It is not doing that that is bad and the doing of such bad things well.

This is the double speak that we have all heard.  It is not competent, it is a trick.

]]>