Just Plain Naive

One reason that we are in such dire straits as a country, supporting an administration that is highly deceptive and works against our best interests as working-class Americans, is that people are still just plain naive. As an example, my mother, Dolly, raised her daughters to believe that the people (men. white men.) in charge of our government wouldn't do anything to hurt us. She stretched that macro-generalization to our micro-world. The government knew best, the police knew best, our doctor knew best, our teachers knew best, and our father knew best. Their main concern was our welfare. I can remember arguing with her about the effects of smoking after the tobacco companies were forced (by consumer pressure) to put health warnings on cigarette packs. She refused to believe that the government would have allowed cigarettes to be sold to us if they were harmful. The "government" wouldn't do anything to hurt us.

I watched George Bush's polls rise again, post-Katrina, as his PR spin machine (led by the Criminal Karl Rove, Satan of Spin) crept into action. He first blamed the local and state government, then refused to participate in finger-pointing, after which he "took responsibility for federal failures" and now, predictably, the blame shifts toward the state and city levels again. And we all seem paralyzed with an inability to figure it all out, including the media. It is easier to stay naive. To believe Daddy wouldn't mislead us.

I am reminded that it takes a mighty long time to change unconscious belief systems that are handed down and never questioned, through patterns of thought and behavior that seem in our best interest but really fuck us over. Why else would people stick magnetic bumper stickers on their SUV's that read Support the Troops? Obviously the irony has gone undetected. Where are the critical thinking skills? Why would US citizens allow the environmental carnage of the Bush administration? Why would they allow unqualified men with inadequate backgrounds, like Mike Brown and John Roberts to slide into positions of power undetected? (Read Rev Mykeru's take on this. He calls them "Stealth Candidates") What's up with all this blind acceptance of the president, with Britney Spears-esque, "Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that," statements coming from men?

Naivety used to be a women-only quality, one that accentuated "feminity" and attracted men. Women, caught between the desire for freedom and power over their own lives and bodies and the allure of "being taken care of" were tempted to stay naive, to depend on men to decide tough issues, fight in wars, protect them. Men, who were the grown-ups, liked little girls best. And for aging women it is still tempting to stay "naive". The world is hard as hell to keep up with. For Dolly there is the impossibility of learning confusing technology and a lifetime habit of trusting those in charge to do the thinking.

But what about men? I can't quite understand how the Bush administration flummoxed them into naivety. Nascar driver Darrell Waltrip, when he was stumping for Bush said something like, "President Bush is a guy who'll look ya in the eye... Kerry has a mansion... Bush has a ranch and farm in Crawford, Texas... I'm not an issues type of guy." In truth, both Kerry and Bush are Yale graduates, whose family fortunes exceed what any common man would accumulate in several lifetimes. (www.erwintang.com) Can't Waltrip sort out truth from fiction? What's up with all this naivety?

Maybe it's because Bush fits an underlying recipe for the kind of confident, authoritative father figure such dads believe should run the ship of state as they believe a man should run a family. Republican rhetoric may appeal to the blue-collar man, Lakoff suggests, because we tend to match our view of good politics with our image of a good family. The appeal of any political leader, he believes, lies in the way he matches our images of the father in the ideal family. There are two main pictures of such an ideal American family, Lakoff argues. According to a "strict father family" model, dad should provide for the family, control mom, and use discipline to teach his children how to survive in a competitive and hostile world. Those who advocate the strict father model, Lakoff reasons, favor a "strict father" kind of government. If an administration fits this model, it supports the family (by maximizing overall wealth). It protects the family from harm (by building up the military). It raises the children to be self-reliant and obedient (by fostering citizens who ask for little and speak when spoken to). The match-up here is, of course, to Bush Republicans. ("Let Them Eat War", Mother Jones)

For me the hard part about holding our government accountable is sorting out the sheer quantity of information, some available and some withheld (another favorite of the Bush people is classifying information), sorting fact from fiction, which seems to merge and flow in ways that make it impossible to tell them apart sometimes. I hold myself responsible for sorting it out, critiquing (not criticizing, but critiquing. There's a difference.) Being an adult. Trying to get to the bottom of things, especially the deceptions of a government that I know I can't trust to look out for my welfare (Haven't they proven that yet?)

We need all the tools we can get to help us analyze the hidden workings of the Bush administration. My word for the day, and a tool for helping us figure it all out is Astroturfing.

Astroturfing

In American politics and advertising, the term astroturfing pejoratively describes formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous, grassroots behavior. The goal is the appearance of independent public reaction to a politician, political group, product, service, event, etc., by centrally orchestrating the behavior of many diverse and geographically distributed individuals.

The term, said to have been used first in this context by former Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas), is wordplay based on "grassroots" efforts, which are truly spontaneous undertakings, largely sustained by private persons (and not politicians, governments, corporations, or public relations firms). "AstroTurf" refers to the bright green artificial grass used in some sports stadiums, so astroturfing refers to artificial grassroots efforts.

Astroturfing is carefully designed to appear as though it is the result of popular feeling, rather than a coordinated campaign, perhaps by spin doctors, or through a front organization.

Examples of these kinds of practices can be found throughout recent political history. In an ostensibly democratic society, most successful political movements involve the exercise of existing power to achieve widespread public consent (and hence legitimacy), so observers may disagree on the line between acceptable support of grassroots activism and astroturfing. Some might suggest that the campaigning techniques of certain non-governmental organizations also embrace aspects of astroturfing.(Read more about Astroturfing at Wikipedia)

I keep saying in this blog that our country feels like it has regressed back into the 1950's, with all the same "hidden" ideologies, silliness, insidiousness. (Go read Chris's post on Americablog for some examples of how racism is becoming more overt (only they don't know it!) in the language of compassionate conservatives.) If Barbara Bush is clueless enough to say "...many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them," (The Nation) it is obvious that George W is the product of a privileged white racist upbringing. And administration damage control saying, "it was just her opinion" is so revealing. Barbara probably doesn't even know she's racist. Hell, George W probably doesn't know he's racist either. I don't imagine he's very good at self-examination. Or critical thinking. The problem, though, is neither are we. And along with this inability to self-examine or tackle complicated issues, manipulations like Astroturfing take the 50's to a whole new level of complexity and hidden agendas that demand time-consuming effort to untangle.

Let's grow up, men and women. Let's tell Daddy we can think for ourselves now. We know how he manipulates us and we are leaving home. We aren't letting him control us any longer. We are on to his deceptive and cruel techniques that scare us and make us want to be taken care of by him. He isn't the only one with information. We can find things out. We can search out his lies. We can find evidence that he doesn't have our welfare as his main concern. We are learning to read and he can't stop us now.

And we want the Republican henchman, Criminal Karl Rove, fired. That is a first step.