People hate Hillary Clinton. These are people like my parents: normal people just going about their lives; not really caring much about politics; interested in family, shopping, pets, sports. They hate Hillary because she and Bill are "fake" -- she's just with him so she can become President. In contrast, the Bushes really care about family. "I've always like Barbara Bush." "Hillary is just ugly." The Clintons carted things off from the White House when they left. Bill Clinton did lots of gross things with women. Bill Clinton looked concerned when he looked out an airplane window at hurricane damage, and then went back to playing solitaire. It was just a photo-op.
In thinking about political issues, most people don't think in practical terms. If they did, they'd care more about the war in Iraq than about whether Congressmen pay for their lunches. They'd care more about the war than about what Clinton did with an intern in the Oval Office. But then, people would care more about politics in general than about serial killers, celebrities, and scandals.
It's the principle of the thing. No practical arguments will work against war, or torture, if people agree with the principles. Saddam was an evil dictator. He not only disobeyed, but mocked us. The Iraqi people were enslaved by this bloodthirsty tyrant. Therefore any means are justified by the end of removing him and freeing the Iraqi people. He had dangerous weapons stockpiled and had used them in the past. Therefore, we cannot trust him and will never be safe until we get rid of him.
Practical thoughts about the costs of war, about the damage that will be done to the international rule of law, just do not occur to most people. If they do, they're a much lesser concern, something that worries them a bit but doesn't change their core views. After all, the US should not be bound by such concerns if it is doing the right thing. The US should not be bossed around by the ineffectual debate society of the UN. We want action, not talk. If something is right in principle, and important, we shouldn't compromise.
Look at Hurricane Katrina. People should have left. It's that simple. Those that didn't have only themselves to blame. Never mind the practical facts that some people are poor and have no cars, or that there were patients in the hospital. Never mind the practical fact that a mass evacuation would have saved many more people. Bottom line: in this country, you shouldn't rely on government for a handout, and that's the principle that overrules any practical concerns. In this country, it's survival of the fittest, and if you don't survive, so be it -- frankly, we'll have a stronger country without you.
Next, Bush's warrantless spying program. Clearly illegal, but that's not a principle that's very convincing when so much is at stake. We face a new kind of threat, ruthless killers that will stop at nothing to destroy us. We can't go through the usual red tape and bureaucratic channels, and we can't get a warrant for each person we want to eavesdrop on, because we want to eavesdrop on everyone. After all, if we had had the credit card accounts, bank statements, and cell phone records of the 12 hijackers, 9/11 could have been prevented. Do we really want another 9/11? We want to do anything we can to prevent it, right? The spying isn't even done by people -- it's done by computers searching for key words. We're already used to Google reading our email. We're already used to records being kept of all our phone calls and purchases. What's the difference? The principle in this case is that we should get out of the way and let our leaders find the terrorists. Civil liberties, privacy -- those are only principles that an antisocial person would make a big stink about in the first place. Teamwork. There's no "civil liberties" in "team".
One principle is the immediacy of the danger that threatens us. If we let our guard down, we are vulnerable. The principles of vigilance and sacrifice must trump other principles in time of danger. We must circle the wagons, identify with our team and against the other team, and get with the program. We must all act like ants, working to sniff out the terrorist cells in our midst, and helping to support the troops' morale abroad in smoking the terrorists out of their caves.
Never mind, in this case, that by letting the President set up a completely secret government, we are creating a monarchy. After all, we are cutting ourselves off from the workings of government. If the people are cut off from any knowledge of the government's programs, it's hard to say they have any role in government. When the people's representatives (Congress) are also cut off, and only one man and his personally selected aides are in power, that's the definition of a monarchy.
But never mind that. This is a crisis, and nobody hires a debate society to lead a war. Again, the principles at work are that this is a crisis, and that the cause is just, because they hit us first. Never mind that by striking back we will kill lots of innocent people and further escalate the threat of terrorism. Those are practical concerns and should not concern us as principled people. We are a nation of heroes, heroically ignoring practical concerns and doing the principled thing. We are bankrupting our treasury, but the cause is just. There really is no alternative. We are casting off democracy for dictatorship, but it's simply more efficient that way. What alternative do we have? There is no limit to this war and thus to the powers we're granting the President. But too bad -- that's just the nature of this war.
I would argue, if the people I have been describing (or inventing) would hear me out, that the principles our government seems to be operating under are faulty. Not just practical concerns, but also principled concerns, underlie opposition to the war in Iraq, and to many of the Bush Jr. Administration's policies and actions. Our principles seem more forward-thinking, fair, and therefore sustainable than the knee-jerk "principles" of an eye for an eye and kill or be killed, which seem to be in operation now. Of course, this is making practical arguments for principles.
Anyway, the principles I seem to share with others opposing Bush are
- a concern for the least among us, to put it Biblically, and therefore a rejection of "survival of the fittest" as government policy.
- a preference for democracy over aristocracy or monarchy.
- a preference for peace over war, even if this means sacrificing our pride, or compromising, or listening to the community.
- a preference for the rule of law, due process of law, and fundamental civil liberties, over state-sanctioned torture and assassination of our enemies.
- a preference for truth over lies and propaganda.
- a distrust of government, and a recognition that politicians are in the propaganda and self-promotion (i.e. public relations) game.
- a distrust of large corporations as players in the PR game with no incentive to care about social welfare ("commonwealth") over their own profits.
- a preference for open government over secret government.
Just by way of conclusion, I think that to win people over to these principles, we have to make principled arguments. Many of our articles and arguments are made in reaction to the latest actions by the Bush Jr. Administration. We point out practical problems and costs, but we don't focus enough on combatting the primitive principles underlying Bush policy. We have to bring up the principles underlying Bush's many disastrous decisions and get them out in the open so we can argue against them.