Shouting Down Dissent

With the President still enjoying huge ratings in most polls, others are feeling much more confident in taking the “with us, or against us” message to new fronts. Former Secretary of Education, William Bennet, has founded Americans for Victory over Terrorism. The aim of the organization is to “take to task those groups and individuals who fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the war we are facing”, or basically, to educate America’s citizens about their wrong-headed liberal views. It’s principles drag up the by now familiar reasoning:

“The radical Islamists who attacked us did so because of our democratic ideals, our belief in, and practice of, liberty and equality. AVOT will take to task those who blame America first and who do not understand—or who are unwilling to defend—our fundamental principles.”

Point 3, though “America’s foreign policy should be guided by those same principles upon which America itself was founded. AVOT will call for a foreign policy that emphasizes democracy and human rights.” sounds extremely promising, as most of the emphasis of the administration should be placed there. However, it stands out as the loner in a forest of other garbage, like “AVOT will support an increased budget for the Department of Defense, research and deployment of a missile defense system, and an even more capable military.” (How much more powerful does it need to be? See Space Wars.)

Plastic has a decent discussion at Bill Bennett’s War On The Terror-Lovin’ Left. Soundbyte Patriots on Alternet points out that Bennet singled out Jimmy Carter, in particular, for not getting with the program.

“… He cited Jimmy Carter, who called Bush’s “axis of evil” rhetoric simplistic and counterproductive. It’s not only that Bennett disagreed with the former president’s assessment, but he asserted that Carter’s remark will “weaken the resolve of others.” This is a rascally attack, suggesting that Carter’s criticism will cause harm.”

There are many more examples of Congress raising their voices and the resulting accusation of weakening “national resolve”. Basically, the advice is that if your statement disagrees with established policy, it is labelled dissent, not discussion, and it shows divisiveness, which will aid the enemy and render the war harder to win because it makes the enemy bolder.

The problem is not that there are those that think this way. The problem is more that powerful people are thinking this way, expressing their opinions, and it’s not raising any protest. If there is no protest when those in power argue for continued war against invisible enemies and equate dissent with abetting the enemy, the slide towards 1984 has begun. In Why Bush Is Addicted to Perpetual War, again on Alternet, draws parallels between the book and today’s world.

“…[there are] ominous-sounding agencies like the Office of Homeland Security, the supposedly-closed Office of Strategic Information, and a “Shadow Government.” As in “1984,” the Bush regime tolerates zero dissent — a two-party system in name only has been distilled to one in which only Republicans express acceptable opinions. And an absence of follow-up attacks has been met by endless alerts, advisors and empty hysterics in the name of security, most recently culminating with Tom Ridge’s much-mocked color-code warning system.”

U.S. troops are deployed in over 100 countries, and are actively engaged in fighting or operations in several places since September 11. He closes with the frightening “Best of all for Bush, the more we go after Islamist extremists, the more they’ll go after us. The war on terror begets more terror begets more war.”