The fundamental flaw in throwing around accusations like that is how subjective emotional terms like "serious, concerned, responsible" and so on are tied silently but firmly to agreement with a particular policy agenda.
If you support everything Bush wants to do, you are "serious, concerned, responsible" - if you don't, you are an ignorant lightweight with no ideas or substance.
It's a straw man argument designed to convince the electorate that no agenda except the President's is serious and valid. It is deliberately designed to close out debate and consensus around any position except one side's.
As such, it is analytically useless, a shallow political ploy that limits rather than deepens debate.
But it is very, very effective in American politics and shows up on both sides of the aisle almost daily. It is certainly a staple of hate-talk radio 24/7.
And it's one of the huge gaping holes in the effectiveness of American politics today. If you can plaster your opponent with personal, subjective accusations instead of addressing a real, opposite agenda of ideas, you get to skip the debate entirely.
Total nonsense. But like I said, very effective in the short-term. In the long run, it is actually very ineffective in building lasting political coalitions. Either Bush's positions are too extreme or ineffective, or more than 50% of the American electorate is now too stupid to appreciate his genius.
I vote for the former. |
