The truth hurts
The 2004 election is one which will have implications for decades to come. In fact, in political terms it is probably the most important election in recent history. These statements are constantly being made by most in the mainstream media, because of the newfound concerns of terrorism and the catastrophe of the Iraq situation
This conventional rationale for this election’s importance is ubiquitously stated by the media and seen as statements of fact rather than opinion. This fits into the media’s characteristically myopic and hyperbolic perspective and based on simplistic understanding of policy differences on current issues rather than more important cultural and political changes that will be based on this election.
The real importance of this election is not based on policy differences but whether it will verify the nature of how this administration views the public and how they market their message. Politics by its nature creates an atmosphere which fosters deception and immorality. Candidates will always present themselves in a disingenuous fashion and make patently false promises to gain election. In most cases this deception is needed so that the candidate can be elected where they can then enact what they believe in, but what they also believe will be good for their constituency.
This administration does not respect the American people, nor enact policies it will see as beneficial to the majority of Americans. In views all those who do not agree with their policies with contempt. The policies of this administration are made to benefit those who agree with their policies and will likely vote for Bush in the fall, and to show venom to those who do not support their agenda.
In addition, the mainstream media is afraid to criticize the administration because it is afraid of reprisals and also because it does not want the public to realize how easily it has been manipulated by this administration. These conditions are often seen in dictatorships and Communist environments, but they should never be allowed in a democratic state.
This administration will go to any length to discredit and vilify anyone who disagrees with their agenda. Most of the time, these statements are made because they are seen as necessary to control the message and to threaten any others who dare disagree. Unlike other administrations, there is no regard as to whether this disagreement is based on legitimate and objective rationale or whether it is merely based on partisan bickering. It does not matter if you are Joseph Wilson trying to make sure that information in the State of the Union is accurate or Tom Daschle making statements about showing restraint, everyone who does not go along with the chosen agenda has their character assinated and will be punished personally with rapid vengeance.
The recent attack of John Kerry’s war record is a quintessential example of this policy. No one in the Bush administration actually believes that John Kerry did not bravely fight in the Vietnam War, but this does not stop them from trying to manipulate the facts to try to present that his service should be viewed as fraudulent and unheroic. It is much too dangerous to present such a controversial message in bold terms, so they use fringe groups to feed this idea into the American public without getting criticized for making such ridiculous and nefarious charges. They will try to disingenuously separate themselves from the messengers to avoid fallout, but they at no time separate themselves from the message, and this lack of contrition tells the public the message has credibility.
The reelection of George Bush would verify the methods used by this administration. In time, Democratic opposition will be forced to use similar tactics to compete with the veracity of the attacks. It is possible that this will lead to an environment which will not only occur in politics but will foster a contentious atmosphere which will stifle true intellectual discussion of issues as volume and ferocity of opinion will overcome the importance of facts.
This election is not only a choice on policy differences between the two parties and candidates, but it will be a referendum on how the current administration views the public and how they present their message. If Bush were to win this election, it would verify that a President can enact policies which are not based on benefiting the majority of the American public, but will only appeal to those who are likely to vote in the election. In addition, that all opponents, including the media, can be criticized with erroneous facts and tarnished by name calling and bullying tactics to prevent objective analysis of policies.
This conventional rationale for this election’s importance is ubiquitously stated by the media and seen as statements of fact rather than opinion. This fits into the media’s characteristically myopic and hyperbolic perspective and based on simplistic understanding of policy differences on current issues rather than more important cultural and political changes that will be based on this election.
The real importance of this election is not based on policy differences but whether it will verify the nature of how this administration views the public and how they market their message. Politics by its nature creates an atmosphere which fosters deception and immorality. Candidates will always present themselves in a disingenuous fashion and make patently false promises to gain election. In most cases this deception is needed so that the candidate can be elected where they can then enact what they believe in, but what they also believe will be good for their constituency.
This administration does not respect the American people, nor enact policies it will see as beneficial to the majority of Americans. In views all those who do not agree with their policies with contempt. The policies of this administration are made to benefit those who agree with their policies and will likely vote for Bush in the fall, and to show venom to those who do not support their agenda.
In addition, the mainstream media is afraid to criticize the administration because it is afraid of reprisals and also because it does not want the public to realize how easily it has been manipulated by this administration. These conditions are often seen in dictatorships and Communist environments, but they should never be allowed in a democratic state.
This administration will go to any length to discredit and vilify anyone who disagrees with their agenda. Most of the time, these statements are made because they are seen as necessary to control the message and to threaten any others who dare disagree. Unlike other administrations, there is no regard as to whether this disagreement is based on legitimate and objective rationale or whether it is merely based on partisan bickering. It does not matter if you are Joseph Wilson trying to make sure that information in the State of the Union is accurate or Tom Daschle making statements about showing restraint, everyone who does not go along with the chosen agenda has their character assinated and will be punished personally with rapid vengeance.
The recent attack of John Kerry’s war record is a quintessential example of this policy. No one in the Bush administration actually believes that John Kerry did not bravely fight in the Vietnam War, but this does not stop them from trying to manipulate the facts to try to present that his service should be viewed as fraudulent and unheroic. It is much too dangerous to present such a controversial message in bold terms, so they use fringe groups to feed this idea into the American public without getting criticized for making such ridiculous and nefarious charges. They will try to disingenuously separate themselves from the messengers to avoid fallout, but they at no time separate themselves from the message, and this lack of contrition tells the public the message has credibility.
The reelection of George Bush would verify the methods used by this administration. In time, Democratic opposition will be forced to use similar tactics to compete with the veracity of the attacks. It is possible that this will lead to an environment which will not only occur in politics but will foster a contentious atmosphere which will stifle true intellectual discussion of issues as volume and ferocity of opinion will overcome the importance of facts.
This election is not only a choice on policy differences between the two parties and candidates, but it will be a referendum on how the current administration views the public and how they present their message. If Bush were to win this election, it would verify that a President can enact policies which are not based on benefiting the majority of the American public, but will only appeal to those who are likely to vote in the election. In addition, that all opponents, including the media, can be criticized with erroneous facts and tarnished by name calling and bullying tactics to prevent objective analysis of policies.