Pacific Views

Why Dean Instead of Kerry

Thanks to North Bay Dean for a link to William Rivers Pitt's Trial of John Kerry. It isn't the sort of hit piece you would expect from the title, rather, after reading it I liked Kerry a bit more. Still prefer Dean, but I won't complain if he's the nominee.

The article discusses the tendency of bipartisan leaning people like Kerry (probably still dealing with Reagan/Bush I habits) to have trusted that Bush would be sensible. And the tendency of the Democratic party base to have a) never trusted Bush in the first place, and b) to resent party leaders who did trust him. Which is really the crux of the matter for this voter.

The fundy wingnut vibe off of Bush was overwhelming to me. The stench of a radical ideologue convinced that he's doing good by God. And I, for any who might not know, am terrible at sizing most people up. Probably just now reading people at a high school level, which is significant progress for me. Except for religious fundamentalists, because I was raised to be one.

And knowing that I'm bad at seeing most people coming, and knowing how clear the nature of the man's character was to me, I have a hard time trusting the judgement of people without my human relations disadvantages who didn't see it. Now if you saw it and liked it, that's one thing. At least it's honest and accurate. But if you didn't see it, there's only two possible explanations by my guess.

In one case, there's the self-delusion option where in a trick known only to humans, we convince ourselves that we aren't seeing what's right in front of our faces. Every one of us is guilty of that in cases peculiar to ourselves, but this particular problem could consign the Democratic party to the annals of the Darwin Awards. In the other case, the individual in question has a character blindness that while understandable, is again very untimely. In an era increasingly defined by religious radicals, how can I put my trust in someone who doesn't seem to be able to spot them before they act? Who doesn't know them until they hijack an airplane or order the unilateral bombing of foreign capitals?

Howard Dean, despite being raised in what appears to have been a very moderate and mainstream ideological environment, can spot them. When he includes Limbaugh and Falwell in the litany along with Bush and Ashcroft, it's clear that he knows the real reason why Bush and Ashcroft are the way they are.

They aren't cutting civil liberties just for kicks. They're doing it because the only way to assert a theological stranglehold on people is to tightly control every aspect of their lives that you can get your hands on. They aren't demonizing liberals only because it's politically convenient. They're doing it because they really believe in demons acting in human affairs, and on some level, they genuinely believe that liberals are forwarding a Satanic agenda.

Don't read that last sentence and think that I'm kidding. I wish I was.

The real holy war isn't going on between Islam and Christianity. Someone (can't remember who, sorry) recently said that the war was between moderate Islam and the radicals trying to take it over. But the other one is between radical Christianity and everything from moderate Christianity to secular humanism. And both of these ideological wars feed on literal war.

In every case we can see in our modern world, radical authoritarian versions of perfectly nice faiths thrive and blossom under fire. We can see it as both India and Pakistan succumb to more and more radical forms of Hinduism and Islam. We can see it as a heinously unpopular government holds on in Iran under withering pressure from the US. And the more radical these governments become, the more belligerent they become.

Radical authoritarianism perpetuates the state of conflict that suits it best, and if that conflict is with other radicals, even better. It improves their position when going after heresy in the ranks. This has been discussed at length by others better qualified. But the continuing belief of too many people that it can't happen here has allowed it to take root and take control of our own government.

And too many people don't know the nature of this conflict at home. They don't even know that it's happening. I guess I'll have to live with that, because there isn't much I can do about it. Even telling people doesn't always help, because it just sounds too weird to be true.

But I don't want to send someone off to fight Bush in the general election who doesn't know it. Because you can't frame the fight to win if you don't know who you're fighting.

Posted by natasha at December 16, 2003 05:10 AM | TrackBack