Tuesday, May 31, 2005

The Empire Strikes Bush

The Empire Strikes Bush

For those who haven't seen Revenge of the Sith and don't want to be spoiled, don't read this...

Okay...saw the movie on Saturday night. It's good. Not great, mind you, but good. Pretty boys, light saber fights. Hayden Christensen can't act his way out of a paper bag, but he's pretty to look at. Ewan McGregor (also pretty to look at) was decent. I was disappointed in Samuel L. Jackson and Natalie Portman but I can't totally blame them. Their dialogue was crap. The movie does bring us up to speed with Episode 4, so all in all, a good movie.

What makes it even better, though, is exactly what this Washington Post article examines. This movie is a harsh critique of the Bush administration. Darth Vader is George W. Bush. Who said this, "If you're not with me, you're my enemy?" If you think Bush, you're close. It's actually a line from Vader. Bush said, "You are either with us or against us." Personally, I like Obi-Wan's response, "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes." Bush is a SITH!

I was talking to Winston about this and I think this is a political strength for the Republicans. No, not their evilness. They are very good at giving absolute, sound bite answers during campaigns. In fact, I think Kerry's inability to do this is what eventually lost him the election. The thing I admire about Kerry is that he doesn't think in absolutes. He sees the shades of grey that exist. He would thoughtfully answer questions addressing shades of grey. Unfortunately, these answers are not good sound bites. And, he can sometimes come across as wishy-washy. Why did he say X before and now he's saying Y? For example, when he first voted for additional funding for the war and then the second time he didn't, he was called wishy washy and unable to make up his mind. In truth, the circumstances changed and his reponse to the new circumstances was different. He didn't change his mind--he reacted to a new set of variables.

Winston suggested that the Democrats need to understand the difference between campaigning and governing. In a campaign, you need to sound strong, resolute, and unwaivering. But, when faced with the realities of governing, you need to be flexible and able to adjust to changing parameters. The Democrats, Kerry specifically, campaigned the way they would govern to their detriment. The Republicans also campaigned the way they govern, much to our detriment.


Blogger Silly Old Bear said...

The thing that seems to be happening (on "both sides of the aisle" for lack of a better description) is the idea that anything (ANYTHING) can be broken down into two choices, and then one of the choices is made out to be 'good' and one 'bad'.

Gay marriage - it's yes or no. No discussion about what 'old fashioned' marriage is or isn't, or why the word 'marriage' throws people into a tizzy, or other civil unions. No, it's either YES, or NO.

We either fight a war on terror with billions of dollars and stretching our fighting forces to the limit, or the terrorists win. There is no middle ground.

You either have tax cuts, or you don't. No talk of limiting the exemptions that some people who really don't need them might get, or overhauling the entire system that is so complicated, or (gasp) spending less money so that every tax dollar goes further.

If you only give two choices, and then hammer away at why one is so "bad," it makes it easier for people to support the other option and say "it's so less bad, it's good!"

The way the Senate cheered for Darth Sidious.

7:31 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home