Daily Kos

"Had Enough?" versus "Feel Safer?"

Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:39:22 PM PDT

On every issue until this weekend, Republicans were losing on the question "Had Enough?", and the margin was growing in favor of Democrats in every poll. The North Korean nuclear test brings the question "Feel Safer?" into play. Over the four weeks that remain until election day, we will see whether it provides a counterpoint to the "Had Enough?" question or reinforces it. Presented below are several threads of reasoning on how this could play out.
The narrative on the North Korean nuclear test is hampered by a lack of theatrical video, and the MSM is reduced to Google Earth and talking heads in their coverage. To work around this, the MSM has fallen back on Cold War footage for a vague visual narrative of what a nuclear threat might feel like. That, however, reduces the immediacy of the North Korean nuclear test coverage, making it feel like historical fact rather than current crisis.

Competing video footage from Iraq will trump this cold war footage as it flows in, since Iraq visuals are contemporary and involve American casualties. Similarly, the Foley scandal will yield interviews, documentary evidence and possibly a Foley arrest as video footage this month, and that will trump North Korea due to its subject of sex. There just isn't enough material for the MSM to work with, and a renewed nuclear race across the Far East will become the basic narrative.

The administration has immediately taken the North Korean issue to the UN Security Council, effectively taking a military response off the table right away. This brings the focus back on Iraq, where ongoing military conflict will get fiercer as the month progresses. The MSM will have to plug North Korea into a broader war narrative, with Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran in a threat matrix that will look increasingly detached from 9/11 to the public.

Public perception on the North Korean nuclear test will also be contested by Democrats on substantive terms, with the claim that North Korea sought nuclear deterrence to counter threats by the Bush administration. This will be echoed by military and diplomatic experts on the MSM, bringing the "Axis of Evil" phrase back into question. However tenuous their connection with 9/11, at least Iraq and Iran are Muslim countries, but North Korea is a complete WTF.

Parts of the MSM, Fox News and Wolf Blitzer for instance, will raise the canard that Bill Clinton let North Korea off the hook during his presidency, and hope that this gains traction with the public. However, this brings the timeline over the past six years in the breakdown of negotiations between the Bush administration and North Korea under scrutiny. In particular, this past year has seen much blatant saber rattling against Kim Jong Il, and the Taepo Dong missile launch on the fourth of July becomes a relevant story for the MSM to recall.

The MSM will have to examine the immediate and long term impact of the North Korean nuclear test. In the near term, Japan's new Prime Minister will push for an amendment to Article 9 of their pacifist constitution, following which they can turn their civilian program into a military one within six months. South Korea is likely to follow Japan, and that will give China a pretext to enlarge its nuclear program to retain dominance. This will inevitably cause Russia to reactivate their program, which coupled with India and Pakistan being nuclear, turns Asia into a proliferation playground. Predictably, Iran will go into a frantic frenzy to gain nuclear deterrence against an American pre-emptive strike.

This raises the question of an attack on Iran, with the North Korean nuclear test providing the justification. However, that will really fuck things up with the Shias in Iraq, Hezbollah will renew its campaign against Israel, oil supplies will be severly disrupted, and more mayhem will follow. Iran is nowhere near as easy an option as Iraq, and it won't take much of a provocation from us, a single strafing run, for Iran to retaliate on our interests in the region. Rather than encourage the drums of war, the North Korean nuclear test will probably make the MSM adopt a tone of caution on Iran.

Even cursory MSM analysis of the fallout from the North Korean nuclear test points towards a new arms race across Asia, and the bottom line for American voters will be that nuclear proliferation has been aggravated worldwide. Polls over the coming weeks will show whether Americans blame Bush for that or rally around the President as they traditionally do in a time of crisis. My feeling is that the "Feel Safer?" question that North Korea raises will reinforce the "Had Enough?" question already being raised by Democrats, and ultimately hurt the GOP or turn out to be a neutral issue on election day.

Tags: 2006 Elections, Republicans, North Korea, Iran, politics (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 22 comments

  •  How will the NK Nuke Test Play Out? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wakemeup7nov06

    For this election, the nuke test reinforces the idea that Bush's foreign policy has failed. Thus, this may be one more nail in the coffin of the GOP majority. However, in the long run, the Republicans will benefit because this reinforces the idea that the world is a dangerous place and that the United States must remain militarily strong.

    •  There's no republican upside. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      wakemeup7nov06

      My diary says in part:

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      My point being, The entire Korea debacle is as much off-message for the Republicans as the Foley scandal.

      You go ahead and try to find a single one of the Bush/republican/protofascist talking points that in any way, shape or form deals with North Korea and its crazy ass regime and its nukes.  You can't.  

      All the reasons Bush had to limit our freedoms, insist on a compliant congress, call the democrats traitors, have got nothing to do with North Korea.  The entire paranoid, give up your freedoms and capture an oil state and instill democracy set of bullshit premises doesn't fit.

      There is no republican stand on Korea.  It's an ignored, fouled up mess.

      "For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician--erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure"-Newsweek.

      by Inland on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:46:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, Repubs have no stand on North Korea. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Inland

        That's why they've taken it to the UN right away. The same UN that they keep beating up on as a do-nothing debating society. Everybody'll hiss a little, that's it, end of story.

        That's it. I've had it with these @%#& Republicans in the @%#& House and the @%#& Senate.

        by wakemeup7nov06 on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:38:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In the short run no upside (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        wakemeup7nov06

        The public gets that the Republicans just don't get it and from now until the election, the American people are going to disbelieve any Republican spin to any event. Once you loose credibility to the public, the people are never going to believe your interpetation of the events. That's where we are at now. Only the Republican fortress (A diary I hope to write about sometime before the election) can save the Republicans from the big tidal wave thats building up. Its hard to say, how much the fortress is going to hold back the waves.

        That being said. Democrats have a problem with the American public on national security issues. Unfortunately, like Watergate, this is a Republican screw up that can help them a few years down the road. How did Watergate help the Republicans? In 1974 it obviously didn't, but Watergate made people cynical of government. When people are cynical of government, they tend to vote Republican. Thus, Watergate helped make Ronald Reagan's anti-government message of 1980 resonate with the American people. Likewise, foreign policy flops of the Bush Administration is helping build an anti-Republican tide in 2006 and probably in 2008, but by 2012, the more dangerous world will help the Republicans.

    •  Your long term prognosis is a serious concern. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      BlueTide

      You're very right that the idea of a more dangerous world helps the GOP, considering that they are the party of the military industrial complex. Democrats need to reclaim national security as an issue they are better on, that's the only long term solution. It's not an easy sell, given that voters find it simpler to buy the GOP war mongering than Democratic diplomacy. Rebranding Democrats as better on national security is serious work that our Fighting Democrats can contribute really valuable input into.

      That's it. I've had it with these @%#& Republicans in the @%#& House and the @%#& Senate.

      by wakemeup7nov06 on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:21:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I totally agree (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        wakemeup7nov06

        First, I want to apologize for my slow response. I made the comment and then went to the store to buy more toner for my printer and now I'm back.

        But you are absolutely right. Democrats have to work on framing why they are better at national security than Republicans. Letting the public just see the facts doesn't work. That's because the facts are just a bunch of dots to the American people. What the Democrats have to do is connect the dots so that the American people see the story. That's why I really agree with Markos and Lakoff about framing and crashing the gate.

  •  Hah! No video! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wakemeup7nov06

    You might have a really good point there. You know what video they show is the old commie style May Day parade footage.

    "For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician--erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure"-Newsweek.

    by Inland on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:43:28 PM PDT

    •  We'll have to monitor how the MSM plays it. (0+ / 0-)

      Clearly, they haven't found a way to make it gripping enough to drown everything else out. There's no doubt that if they could, they would. We'll have to keep tabs on how North Korea plays out all week on TV, until at least the talk shows this weekend. Ideally, Dems should turn it into another hammer to bludgeon the Repubs with. At the very least, it should end up as a neutral issue, with Repubs getting nothing out of it.

      That's it. I've had it with these @%#& Republicans in the @%#& House and the @%#& Senate.

      by wakemeup7nov06 on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:14:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Both Are Losers (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wakemeup7nov06

    In my opinion.

    The 2006 message on NK should be (in my opinion):

    For six years Republicans have beaten the war drums against an "Axis of Evil." But what did they actually do? They made Iraq more dangerous, while they left North Korea to spend six years developing nuclear weapons. They are playing politics with the deadly serious business of war and peace. It's time to let the grownups take charge before these brats get us all into real trouble.

    •  War for profit doesn't work well for America. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      NewDirection

      Actually, it's not playing politics with the deadly serious business of war and peace. It's playing business with the deadly serious politics of war and peace. This entire "war on terror", "axis of evil", "global ideological struggle for civilization" bullshit is the marketing of a war for profit. North Korea is the odd man out in that picture, and we can encourage voters to question the basic premise of the whole thing now.

      That's it. I've had it with these @%#& Republicans in the @%#& House and the @%#& Senate.

      by wakemeup7nov06 on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:04:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  feel safer? (2+ / 0-)

    Well DO ya?

    Hawkish on impeachment.

    by clyde on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 06:49:58 PM PDT

  •  How about "Integrity?" (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wakemeup7nov06

    Cunningham  $$$
    DeLay  $$$
    Ney   $$$
    Foley  underage sexual harassment
    Hastert  covering it up
    K Street institutionalized buying of government
    Abramoff ditto plus defrauding your clients

    and HOW many earmarks for Repubs in the last 6 years?

    along with WMD's ????

    Defending the Constitution - HOW many court rulings against our Pres?

  •  Feel safer (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    wakemeup7nov06

    is a sub set of Had Enough. I do not Feel Safer. I feel less safe every day. I've Had Enough.

    •  Yes, Dems can make that subsetting happen. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      JoeWPgh

      When the majority of the voters out there agree with us that not feeling safer is part of having had enough, Dems win. To the extent that not feeling safer makes some vote Repub, Dems still have work left to do on the North Korea issue. Would you agree?

      That's it. I've had it with these @%#& Republicans in the @%#& House and the @%#& Senate.

      by wakemeup7nov06 on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 07:29:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We've been through too much (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        wakemeup7nov06

        and have sacrificed too many of our constitutional protections, to only feel less safe every day. That's a Had Enough for me.
        As for NK, read this diary. Then, consider the lack of magnitude of today's test. Dud? Non-nuke? Tiny nuke?
        The very fact that there's no consensus tells me that there is a dangerous lack of resources being applied to what most consider a serious situation, while one of our own main players lined his pockets. Again, I've Had Enough.

Permalink | 22 comments