|
Bashing Bush's Propaganda Dissemination
In the US,
Republicans have devised a term to deflect any criticism of the
President: if you find a problem with Bush’s policies or his
administration’s habit of constant and unadulterated deception, you
are known as a “Bush-basher”. This term has been
brought into the mainstream dialogue, everywhere from CNN to newspapers.
An Atlanta Journal-Constitution article talks about a woman planning on
voting for John Kerry—yet the author felt the need to defend this
Kerryite from outraged readers by noting, “she's
no Bush basher”, followed by a reassuring quote from the woman: "I think George Bush is an honest
person…[who’s] done the best he can”. At least her opinion is now
valid, seeing as how she knows that Bush is “honest” and doing the
“best he can”. Amazingly, this type of attitude is fairly normal for
the American media. An
American Daily column starts right off with “I
was in a chatroom recently when I came across a Bush Basher who insisted
that John Kerry would be a better President than George W. Bush”. If
you’re not a dedicated foot soldier for Bush, you’re certainly a
“Bush Basher”, naturally. A Christian Science Monitor article,
arguing against books that criticize or poke fun at Bush, states that
“Such
name-calling is a sorry substitute for debate, and surely undeserving of
good Americans' time or consideration”.
Yet the very article engages in the same type of sorry
name-calling—the article itself is entitled “Bush-Bashing:
International Sport?”, and refers to Bush critics as “bush-haters”
with arguments equivalent to
an “incoherent rant”. Articles
refer to “Bush-bashing billionaire George Soros”, “pre-Bush
bashing Dixie Chicks”, and “the Dems’ Bush-bashing primary
duel”. The UK’s Financial Times notes how the Academy Awards “is
expected to produce at least a few moments of Bush-bashing”,
while a Kansas City Star article mentions that host Billy Crystal “did
an uncomfortable
amount of Bush-bashing”.
Uncomfortable? We are at the stage when joking about Bush gets
Americans “uncomfortable”. Good-natured jokes about a President are
considered “bashing”. But only when it comes to Bush.
Bill
Clinton is still fiercely ridiculed on late-night shows, among other
media outlets. What would equivalently be known as “Clinton bashing”
was accepted during his Presidency, and still is. But you won’t hear
much complaint about “Clinton-bashing” anywhere, even though vicious
attacks on him from opponents defined his Presidency. Apparently, now
only criticism (or “bashing”) of terrible presidents—and only
terrible ones—is considered unacceptable. A
Google search of “Clinton bashing” turns up over five thousand
results—but the phrase “Bush bashing” turns up eight times that,
even though Bush’s presidency has thus far been less than half as
long. It points to a Republican tactic to paint anyone critical of
Bush’s often-disgusting policies and lies as incoherent, illogical,
and devoid of common sense. They don’t have a point, the idea
goes—they’re just “bashing” this great President. It’s a part
of a larger scheme to easily discredit Bush critics, and the wide
acceptance of this new phrase “Bush-basher” speaks volumes about the
Bush team’s marvelous ability to spread their own propagandistic
imagery to contort public opinion. This is where those
with minds of their own, able to put their heads around issues using
clear logic and common sense, must fight back with a phrase of their
own: from here-on in, those saying anything remotely sympathetic towards
Bush or his administration will be known as “Bush-scrotum-attached
apologists”. I urge you to help introduce this phrase into the general
lexicon. If the “Bush-basher” derogation is ever thrown at you, respond in the way any rational human being would: say “thank you, you Bush-scrotum-attached apologist, I appreciate it greatly”. Fire must be fought with fire, stupid phrases with stupid phrases, mindless idiocy with mindless idiocy. |
© 2004 CounterBias.com