There is desperation in the air
By Michael Tackett
the Tribune's Washington Bureau chief
September 3, 2006
You know the White House is getting nervous when the president of the
United States starts dropping the "f-bomb."
And not just him. We've heard it from Vice President Dick Cheney and
from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, among others. So there's not
much doubt that this is part of a plan. Few administrations have
perfected the notion of a drumbeat better than those in Bush 43.
You won't have to cover the children's ears when you talk about this
"f-bomb," but there will be a need for some explanation.
It's not every day, you know, when you come face to face with the
threat of a fascist.
The word has resonance with Americans of a certain age, schooled that
Italy's Benito Mussolini, Germany's Adolf Hitler and Spain's Francisco
Franco were first-team-all-fascist. But Bush now is casting a much
wider aspersion that includes those whom he decries broadly as "Islamic
extremists." It is an interesting gambit, using the echoes of World War
II to win approval during the war on terror.
The pivot from
"extremists" to "fascists" suggests that "extremist" wasn't cutting it
in terms of ringing the voters' chimes and summoning support for the
war in Iraq, which the president continues to say is the epicenter of
the global war on terror. There is increasing evidence that a majority
of Americans no longer agree with how the president connects those
dots, or his success in fighting either battle.
The more
right-leaning members of the conservative movement have been pushing
the language "Islamo-fascist" for at least a couple of years, as though
demonizing an entire people somehow makes the argument more powerful.
They clearly hoped that their term of art would take hold in a broader
public square. And eventually, they succeeded. The president, in a
speech following the arrest of terrorist suspects in Britain, dialed
back that terminology to "Islamic fascists." Editing can be such a
subtle art.
Rumsfeld, a master of rhetoric and parsing, joined
Bush in the fascist bashing, and he added another World War II-era
concept of appeasement in a speech to the American Legion convention
last week. So now those who don't agree with the administration are
fascist appeasers. Things are indeed getting ugly.
It seems the
term fascist would go down more easily if they could name an actual
leader in control of an actual country, perhaps leading a daily goose
step or two, but that's clearly being hypertechnical. Maybe someone
will cue the old Al Qaeda training videos from Afghanistan. Or Osama
bin Laden will again pop up with another diatribe against the United
States.
Not so technical--indeed quite obvious and literal--is
that the president wants the midterm elections to be driven by a focus
on the war, with the Democrats cast in the role of appeasers.
Will that tactic work again? It worked well in 2002 when Republicans
made gains in midterm elections, and it most certainly worked in 2004
when the president's campaign pummeled John Kerry and other Democrats
on national security. It goes to a long-held, core perception of
Democrats--at least since Vietnam--that they are soft on national
defense.
For years, Democrats have offered a rather impotent
defense, winning elections when voters cared more about their
pocketbooks than their personal safety.
Democrats now openly
challenge the president. They draw clear distinctions between Iraq and
the war on terrorism, and argue that all the money, troops and
attention in Iraq actually undermine the fight against terrorism. They
argue that the administration has mismanaged the war and call for
Rumsfeld to step down.
Bush's focus on security will be seen
again and again during the Sept. 11 commemoratives in the next few
weeks. Inescapably, the moment will be used to reinforce the broader
message about the president and Republicans as the better protectors.
But this will be the first major Election Day across the country since
the public mood so demonstrably soured on Iraq, the war on terror and
Bush's job performance.
Most Republicans expect to suffer
losses and erosion in their already spare majority in Congress. The
issue might be whether the use of fascists can stop the bleeding.