Macho, Macho Man - An Elegy for Rumsfeld and the Right
Wed Nov 08, 2006 at 11:25:26 AM PDT
So, Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down--apparently a mere hour or so after confirming to Fox news that he would do no such thing.
This story was linked to the following headline on Google News: "Rumsfeld Has No Plans to Step Down, Despite Democrat Gains". But notice how quick The Great Decider is to spin this as having nothing to do with his own weakness:
Bush told Iraqis not to be fearful by the changes in the United States or its own halting steps to democracy. He also warned terrorists not to start celebrating as a result of Rumsfeld's departure.
"Do not be joyful. Do not confuse the workings of our democracy with a lack of will. Our nation is committed to bringing you to justice. Liberty and democracy are the source of our strength," Bush said.
Yeah? I forget, who said "Bring it on!"? (more)
"Now after a series of thoughtful conversations, Secretary Rumsfeld and I agreed that the time had come for new leadership at the Pentagon," Bush said in an East Room press conference scheduled Tuesday night after election returns showed an incoming Democratic House majority.
"Don Rumsfeld has been a superb leader during a time of change. Yet he also appreciates the value of bringing in a fresh perspective during a critical period in this war," he said.
Rumsfeld's departures [sic] was a surprise to many after his office gave no indication earlier in the day that the congressional outcome would impact his decision. Just last week, Bush said he had full faith in Rumsfeld. Then again, he acknowledged Wednesday that he thought Republicans would retain the House.
He also said to a question about how he could work with Nancy Pelosi if she became speaker "That won't happen". All of which goes to show that he's The Great Decider, not The Great Prognosticator, or even The Moderately Wise and Humble One. But that's not a trait exclusive to Bush. In fact, as I try to piece together exactly what drives the authoritarian rightists who were his real core as common sense, America and the war went south past the pole, it seems to be a love of all things stupidly macho which drives these people (and makes Coulter the target of gender-based speculation).
Why did Limbaugh attack Michael J. Fox? Well, one, he felt he had to try and take him down because he realized that Fox was dynamite. But how did he do it? By questioning his macho bona fides--attacking him for how he looked, and suggesting that it was an act. What kind of effeminate faggot would do something like this? Oh yeah, a Hollywood liberal.
What about Ted Haggard? His inability to deal with his own inner nature (sorry, Ted, not all of us men who are alone travelling on business feel the need to call gay escorts) led to his downfall. But he first had made a career and a life out of attacking anyone who not only shared some of the same proclivities, but even those who would merely refuse to condemn them. And an odd thing about all those homophobes: they tend to nearly unanimously believe that homosexuality is a choice, not an orientation. Partly this supports the rhetoric of "prevention" by not allowing it "legitimacy"; mostly, I suspect, it's because when confronted with their own natures, it's comforting to believe that it can be fixed by simply not wanting it.
Finally, Markos posted a link to this excellent piece 10 days ago at John Cole's blog. In summary, John has come to the conclusion that a Democrat victory would be good for the Republicans, because they need to be reminded about the political costs (as well as material) of the corruption they've allowed to run rampant--corruption of principle, of government, of person. But I want to point you to this post at Blogs for Bush, a nice book-end to that other post.
Leftwingers are giddy at the prospect of engineering an American defeat in Iraq, while many conservatives are glumly assuming that we've lost the war for good. Both are wrong.
[my italics]
Now, I grant you that the idea that the left, or Democrats, or the coalition of voters who voted for Democrats last night, wants to "engineer defeat" in Iraq is both shockingly stupid, and utterly predictable, but the really interesting word here is "giddy". (I should note here that one of the worst things on CNN last night was when Lou Dobbs reported that Pelosi was positively giddy at the thought of being Speaker--would he have said this of Hoyer or Murtha? What a tool.) Why not "ecstatic"? "anticipating"? "happy"? "excited"? Why? Because unlike all of those words, "giddy" carries rather misogynist undertones with it, and implies that the left are not simply defeatist, but also pussies. And that is a word I use here only to characterize their speech.
Contrast this whole post with John Cole's. Cole is interested in solutions; Noonan is interested in macho daydreams. And so is Bush... and Cheney... and Rumsfeld... and Haggard...
Finally, it's all revealed--the force which unites some of the evangelicals and the neo-cons: a dysfunctional obsession with Daddy and the need to be the toughest sonuvabitch on the block. It really doesn't matter what happens in Iraq, win, lose or reality, so long as we blow things up real good and if we go down, we go down in flames! In this light, I can begin to understand their attraction to authoritarianism for its own sake. It's still stupid and illogical, but I feel I understand it better knowing that it's pathological.
And that same scenario plays out for all issues. As long as we let a bunch of misogynist, dysfunctional macho idiots control the discourse (and this is especially true of the "pundit subclass"), you can expect a lot of bad outcomes. Maybe Bush 41's big problem wasn't stopping in Kuwait; maybe it was calling America "kinder and gentler".
Permalink | 3 comments