Reader Robert Boldt's cartoon is cute, but I would remind folks that the latest tales of a resurgent Al Qaeda come not from Chertoff's gut but from a National Intelligence Estimate.I'm curious -- if a large and horrifying event were to occur at some point during this summer, how do you think the nation will respond? What's your gut reaction concerning the nation's gut reaction?
I'm not necessarily asking about who or what will actually be responsible for a Big Wedding II, should there be a Big Wedding II (as I hope to God there is not). I'd like your reading on how the citizenry would respond after a catastrophic terror event.
As I see it, these are the possible responses, from most cynical to least:
1. Folks will say that Bush/Cheney did it to bolster sagging poll numbers and to insure the American military's continued presence in the Middle East.
2. Folks will say that Bush was incompetent -- that he neglected to heed the warnings, that he did not secure the ports and borders, that he should have captured Osama years ago.
3. Folks will accept the administration's explanation at face value, but will become suspicious later, as Bush transforms national outrage into a pretext for renewed conscription and an attack on Iran.
4. Folks will rally around our leaders in a time of crisis.
I think we can all agree that each category will attract at least some adherents. But what will the percentages be? Will the vast majority of Americans react with utter cynicism, or will the vast majority act as they -- we -- did in the wake of 9/11?
In my opinion, the percentages depend largely on the scale of the event. A truly heart-wrenching event, such as a nuclear attack on a large city, would make Option 1 -- the ultra-cynical response -- psychologically difficult for most citizens. Thus, the bigger the disaster, the safer Bush would be, politically speaking.
Let me repeat: This is a HYPOTHETICAL question, and I pray to whatever powers there be that the issue remains hypothetical.
6 comments:
First of all, I think it's naive to speak of folks just responding to events. Mediating between them and the event would be a massive media spin frenzy telling evrybody exactly what to think and how to react.
Altho I have no proof for this, I expect there have already been attempts to create additional terror events since 9/11. But with the entire world intelligence community long since wise to the ways of this administration, they are hard to bring off.
This administration has no interest in preventing terrorism, quite the contrary, they thrive on it.
If something did happen, I think they would get a surprisingly short bump in the polls, followed by a wave of resentment. In the end, it's lose-lose for the Repugs, because if people have a choice, they will vote for someone who might actually be able to protect the country. I think most people see the Repugs now as, at best, corrupt and useless (which they are).
It's easy. People will think of it what ever Newscorp/Fox News spins it.
Terror and tragedy, all because the Dem's questioned and attempted to block Bush's courageous attempt to fight them over there. For if the Dem's and columnists had just supported the troops, then this would never ever have happened.
Just mark my words, the obstruction by the Dem's will bring more terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
My gut tells me who is at fault. It must be the Dem's for it can't be our troops or heroic first responders, or their fearless leader, protector of our homeland and defender of the faith, the anointed and supreme president Bush.
Quote:
You can`t have a massive US military occupation of a major Arab Muslim country for years on end that does not come back to bite you on the ass.
Juan Cole
It all depends... if Big Wedding II is a nuclear event, COG (Continuity of Government) will step in and the gloves will be off. Option 1 is reasonably not allowed anymore, option 4 becomes war propaganda. Public opinion will be hugely distorted.
If BW2 is a 9/11 type event (lots of airtime and gripping images, lots of effort to spin the story), option 1 will be hugely popular. Because, even if you believe that Iraq is connected to 9/11, you cannot deny that Bush's war on [method] is an enormous failure. Story-believers can only opt for option 2.
Any smaller type event (a -series of- bomb(s) in the subway somewhere) may just garner enough support for a war with Iran. But, equally possible, it may trigger a Spain-type reaction (after 3/11, the incumbent government was voted out).
My guess is however that BW2 will not happen. (Don't aks me why, I'm only guessing.)
I think about 25% will fit into class 4, and welcome the chance to cheer on more State Sponsored killing from a distance on their televisions while waving their flags and drinking their "Milwaukee's Best".
Class 1, 2, and a rapidly-metomorphizing class 3 can all be lumped into a single dominant superclass whose essential reaction will be one of absolute outrage - against our own "leaders".
We've stood virtually silent while we watched these assclowns destroy the constitution in the name of safety, while using the same excuse to shove our service men and women into wars based on justifications that range from questionable to incredible. We've watched while lives are being wasted this way, and a balanced budget became a record deficit by several orders of magnitude, despite the disintegration government and private sector infrastructure - both services and physical.
And we've tolerated all of this on the basis of preventing "another 911".
If despite all of that, such a large scale atrocity should occur here again, I don't think the debate over incompetence vs. malfeasance is going to be nearly as important as the outrage over the results.
It might be just enough to push the fascists out of power, which would be ironic in the extreme.
i'm inclined to go with dr. stern's assessment, for the most part. i think the polls clearly show the public has soured on this whole mess and that they will tend to be cynical about any official story.
i actually have far more respect for the public's intellectual capacities than does anon. after all, that 70% who is not buying the admin crapola these days are clearly and openly rejecting what the media is dishing out.
i suspect that the percentage breakdown will be about 20% for each segment, which places roughly 60% in some level of cynicism.
truly; i just don't think the public will stand for being manipulated that far.
which leads me to suspect further:
this could actuall lead to a full out civil war within our own country, because the already highly divisive factions will just completely split apart.
and i don't really think this is outside the range of potential scenarios they're considering. in fact, because they'd have what they'd interpret as reason to officiate the dictatorship they already envision and pretend, they'd be thrilled.
all the more reason why we truly MUST remain adherent to the Constitution, all the way.
Post a Comment