Big Balls Politics
When it comes to national security, tough talk and demagoguery aren’t foreign by any means to politicians. The fear of being attacked and unknown dangers lurking in the shadows makes some people responsive to fear mongering and machismo-laden threats. Many a politician feel a need to show his or her toughness through inflammatory rhetoric and by uttering things that are likely a gross exaggeration of the politician’s true thoughts.
I’m half-Iranian though, so even with this in mind I was taken aback by something Hillary Clinton said recently:
Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on “Good Morning America” Tuesday. ABC News’ Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
I don’t know what to highlight: “obliterate” or “them”. Can we at least acknowledge that there is a difference between a country’s government and its people? Unless all 66 million Iranian men, women, and children all press the red button to launch a nuclear attack, do we really want to destroy the people along with the Iranian government in this scenario?
Using the word “them” instead of “the Iranian government” isn’t a slip of the tongue or a random word choice. It’s reflective of a dehumanizing, us-vs-them view of the world that is bereft of nuance and lumps people and governments into “the enemy.” We had seven years of this, and to disastrous consequence. I don’t want to hear any Presidential candidate even pay lip service to this type of thinking, regardless if his or her true views are probably more nuanced.
RedBach said,
April 22, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
Spot on.
Mike said,
April 30, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
Speaking of political rhetoric…
I’m thinking the “bigoted, less-educated, white, working class male Bubbas” that the media keep mentioning who live in Indiana and other fly-over states, and who may make the difference in the Democratic race, could go for Hillary’s “gas tax holiday” stunt. I really think they’ll see saving $30 over three months as a good plan for solving the increasing gas price issue. It’s scary that we, meaning people who are following the campaign, will not make as much of a difference as the “working class, 10mpg-pickup- truck driving males” who could tip the scale in Clinton’s favor. This could be a case in which the simpler, instantly gratifying message- Save $30 this summer- could beat Obama’s more practical message, which takes more than a 15 second sound byte (or 10 words for print media) to explain.