Will, as always, holds himself out as an intellectual attempting to provide scholarly analysis of things that he himself creates, on the run.
A master of the "straw man" method of hollow discourse.
First he frames his piece, with the assistance of the title of Beinarts study on Liberals and proceeds to draw the hackneyed black and white contrasts between the pacifist liberals and the patriotic conservatives.
Then it is a simple matter to throw all Americans into one of these two buckets.
Ultimately he breaks down to the Bush doctrine of who are our enemies and who isn't.
Are you for us or agin us?
The test being being not so much whether one qualifies as an actual enemy, but merely any entity whom this incompetent administration deems to provide political advantage in attacking, physically or rhetorically.
Including, in no particular order: Iraq, France, Joe Wilson, Venezuela, Iran, gays, taxes, etc..........
For Will to attempt to create a cohesive position, he strives to locate a kernel of merit in the administrations motivations.
For this he resorts to the fiction that only conservatives are willing to fight for our country, and that Bush incompetence is;
"creating exactly the condition the conservatives have long feared: An America without the will to fight,"
I submit that conclusion is patently ridiculous.
It is a feature of the contemporary conservative self delusion that they alone are prepared to protect the Republic.
I think the greater truth is most, if not all, Americans will fight to protect our country from all enemies, domestic and foreign.
It is a further truth that these same Americans are now much more circumspect in who they listen to in terms of declaring who are the enemies.
And that same selectivity in recognizing who is actually harming America is sending cold shudders thru the GOP congressional majorities.
|
