Ideology vs. Fact
by B.J. Delas Armas
on 9/30/2004 10:14:00 PM
Print this post
Bush is ideology. Kerry is fact. Ideology is static. Facts are not always so.
A fact, to me, is just some kind of spare part that goes under ideology. Kerry has plenty of those spare parts and demonstrated so.
In the last debate, Kerry chased Bush on his invading of Iraquistan, his unwillingness to work with the whole world to the point where Bush would visibly crumble back to this basic ideology of "I did it for the protection of the American people and that I stand by my decisions because I am a leader" and Kerry would crack a smile and keep on penning and strategizing as if he knew he was winning the debate.
But what matters ultimately is if he wins voters over. People usually don't decide who wins until they hear the after commentary.
As a non-politics follower aside from domestic issues like education and poverty, I really wasn't sure about all these facts that Kerry was throwing out there --- there really wasn't a central thrust to all that ammunition he had (heeee, a lil dirty connotation there). He had the flares but not the canonball. He had enough to defend his own positions --- like he was playing not to lose instead of playing to win.
That central ideology to tie up his campaign is all he needs to win this election because people do want to be able to grab on to something, to TRUST something in what might seem an everchanging United States where things aren't so static as history presents it to be. When anyone is talking in ideological terms, time and place is removed. You have something that is thought to be constantly at work and unchanging. President's Bush's intentions are something that is thought to be constantly at work and unchanging.
For example, in running away from Kerry's facts, the resident would say that he did things because ultimately he wanted to protect Americans. It was as if he always had protecting Americans in the back of his mind all the while do things that pissed people off and enhanced our chances of getting into wars like starting wars with people who weren't enemies, pissing practically the whole world off, just to name a few things.
The sad thing is that Shrubya could get away with this because he always boils it down to intentions and ideologies driving those intentions. He always says his intentions were good (but his plans never work, and he is incompetent for the job) and presents himself as a lovable commodity. Like Mad TV (a most reliable news source) eloquently said, "people love him because he's like loving a retarded child." The Republican trademark has been to attack credibility, distracting listeners with chips on the advocate's off-centerness and how that cannot be trusted. They build trust by telling you that other people cannot be trusted. . .
Labels: Political Theory, Presidential Elections