| |
|
I think it's important to understand what Bush, Blair, and company are actually doing, what mythology they're working from, before you start playing with ideas to counter it (or at least make it less destructive).
It seems my idea a few months back that they were operating from an idealized myth of the Victorian era of British Imperialism is proving accurate. Look at what we're seeing. Now, we're discussing Iran as being "next", and Sharon seems intimidated into accepting a peace plan. The idea, here, would be to curb terrorism by forcibly stabalizing the region, making doing so profitable by controlling the oil, and making life better for the inhabitants. I don't think all of that talk about making life better for the people there is just talk. I think they really believe that's what they're doing. Think Kipling, and you'll understand the philosophy and thought processes at work, here. They're just using modern tools.
This presents problems on the American side, though. This is a country that's very existance and identity was based on a rejection of British Imperialism, after all. So, Dubya's marketing people are having to try to sell this as something other than what it is, as being honest about the oil factor would be rejected by most. It would be impossible to convince the American people that oil companies benefitting is worth American lives. With most of the media under the control of a very small handful of corporations, it makes the marketing easier, since dissenting voices have much more trouble being heard than they used to. So, we have an Administration that really does believe they're seeing the Big Picture, and taking the best actions for the greater good of everyone, but are having to lie to their own people about what they're doing. Everything is dependant on the Imperialistic approach actually having the desired effects, and that's something that's going to take some time if it does. They're having to portray it as a Black/White issue, Good vs Evil, so any dissent will be shouted down. The problem with the opposition is they are being as robotic and reactionary as the people shouting them down. They're maintaining this Black/White, Good vs Evil mentality, as much as Bush's marketing campain, just with Bush, Blair, and company in the demonic role. It's hard enough selling Saddam as the modern Hitler, but it's even harder selling Bush and Blair in that role. And rather pointless. You have to be willing to know what the opposition is trying to achieve, and why, before you can come up with a workable alternative. And, you NEED an alternative that solves the terrorism issue better than the one being implemented, as that's the primary selling point of the current approach. People are supporting this mainly because they consider it better than being blown up. If imposing control over the region is the wrong way, what's the RIGHT way? What's a better way to make the Middle East stable and peaceful, so there's less motive for terrorism? What's a better way to prevent more terrorist attacks? Or, do they just need to be up front that the Imperialistic approach is what they're doing, and just try to sell it as the best option availiable, and allow an honest debate over it?
E |
|
|
