Orson Scott Card: America just lost. What now?

RhinoTimes / The Ornery American ^ | November 09, 2006 | Orson Scott Card

[Tolik]

I believe in two-party government. I especially believe in it when it prevents Congress from doing anything – because that prevents them from doing stupid things. Of course, the Republicans were already doing a fine job of keeping even one-party government in a permanent logjam. Plus, the Republicans were also proving themselves just as unable to remain worthy of power while holding it as the Democrats did during their decades of dominance from 1954 to 1994.

This election proves only that the monolithically leftwing mainstream media can make the public believe we are losing a war that we are winning. As long as we're getting a two-party Congress, how about getting a two-party press?

If they're really serious about becoming the majority party, what rich Republicans need to do is stop paying for thousand-dollar-a-plate fundraising dinners and start buying up newspapers and networks. The Democrats already own almost all of them, and we have seen in this election how a prosperous economy can be concealed and a successful war can be turned into a "disaster" when you own the public's primary sources of information.

My hope is that the Democratic Party does not really mean the stupid, self-destructive things it has been advocating for our policy in Iraq and that they don't cut our soldiers off at the knees by underfunding the continuation of the War on Terror – including the campaign in Iraq.

The only issue that matters is still the War on Terror. Everybody talks about changing direction in Iraq. I agree. But I doubt they mean the same thing I do.

The only ways to change direction in Iraq are to give up and go home – a militarily stupid and morally indefensible move – or to go to the source of the insurgents' supply and cut it off.

Throughout this election season I have been hoping that President Bush had a bold military move against Iran up his sleeve, and that the only reason he was holding off was that he didn't want it to be perceived as an attempt to influence the election – or because he feared it would influence the election negatively.

Well, the election is over. Will he take the necessary military action to wipe out Iran's capability to disrupt the flow of oil in the Gulf? This would remove any credible threat from Iran (for the moment, at least), making it clear to both Iran and Syria that the way is now open for the US to take whatever action is necessary to stop their support of both terrorism and the subset of terrorism called "the Iraq insurgency."

The way to save the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians in Iraq is to get regime change in Iran and Syria. Syria we could topple quite easily, once Iran's ability to threaten shipping in the Gulf was removed. And without Syria as its surrogate in the Arab world, and without any credible threat to the world oil supply, either Iran's military would change the Iranian government, or the Iranian government would have to face the fact that it could no longer act with impunity.

[Tolik]

Orson Scott Card - PING  [please freepmail me if you want or don't want to be pinged to Orson Scott Card political articles]

This article will be posted permanently (eventually) on his The Ornery American website http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/index.html

Links: his articles discussed at FR: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/k-orsonscottcard/browse  and archived here (it is a must go place for all new to OSC political writing): http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/index.html

His fresh articles appear in the Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC: http://www.rhinotimes.com/greensboro/  (before being posted permanently on his The Ornery American website). Read his books/movies/and everything reviews: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/ 

His "About" page: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/about.shtml

[Vicomte13]

I was hoping Bush would do something like that too, but there is no reason to believe he will. We've lionized him as "strong", but that was more wishful thinking than based on the evidence. A strong, bold President would have asked Congress for a full Declaration of War after 9/11. Bush settled for a more political solution, which just bit us in the ass last Tuesday.

[redgolum]

Don't think we will do anything about Iran now. The new congress would never allow it, and even limited strikes would set off a land war with Iran. We don't have the men or supplies in theater for that.

[An Old Marine]

You are so right. If we'd been serious about a war on terror we'd have tripled the military in 2001 and invaded Afghanistan - through Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran and ended the lunacy that is Islamo-facism.

Now we will have to suffer another terror attack before anyone will even talk about doing something about it.

[RKBA Democrat]

"If they're really serious about becoming the majority party, what rich Republicans need to do is stop paying for thousand-dollar-a-plate fundraising dinners and start buying up newspapers and networks. "

Buying up networks? Heck, I'd be happy if conservatives simply started engaging in practical politics. Owning the media would be icing on the cake.

As it stands, conservatives haven't really won a national election since at least 1994.

[The FIGHTIN Illini]

pingaringading

[KarlInOhio]

I have had the opinion from the start of the Iraq invasion that the real reason for it was to surround Iran (conqured Iraq on the west, Turkey in the northwest, Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east) to be able to put a lot of pressure on it. Iran knew this, thus they are fighting back by supplying the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq to get us to give up the fight.

If we pull out, Iran will have won and will soon have de facto control over the Shiite areas of Iraq.

[wita]

I agree with your take on the subject, and the loss in the House of fatso as majority leader will hopefully bode well for sanity and reason to prevail when trying to nuance an early pullout as something besides cut and run.

Who knows, could it be that Republicans will govern best as a minority, close as it is, aligned with the 40 some blue dog dems? Time will tell. The senate could be the decider, living up to my opinion of them as the single most dangerous body of men and women on the face of the earth at this time.

[Quix]

SOCK IT TO EM IN TRIPLICATE!

GOOD POST.

THX

[George W. Bush]

If they're really serious about becoming the majority party, what rich Republicans need to do is stop paying for thousand-dollar-a-plate fundraising dinners and start buying up newspapers and networks. The Democrats already own almost all of them, and we have seen in this election how a prosperous economy can be concealed and a successful war can be turned into a "disaster" when you own the public's primary sources of information.

Big Big Truth!

[MizSterious]

"Buying up networks? Heck, I'd be happy if conservatives simply started engaging in practical politics. Owning the media would be icing on the cake."

What would they do if they owned a network anyway? Not always, but most of the time when a Republican appears on one of the talking head shows with a 'Rat, the Republican is totally ineffective. They don't correct the 'Rat lies, they just sit there looking slightly guilty (for what, fer cryin' out loud??) and let the 'Rats talk over them.

This country, and the Republicans in particular, need to come to an understanding about what we're up against. We can't play politics as usual, or we'll all be paying homage to the moon-god. (Those of us who still have our heads, that is.)

[RKBA Democrat]

"What would they do if they owned a network anyway? Not always, but most of the time when a Republican appears on one of the talking head shows with a 'Rat, the Republican is totally ineffective."

You realize of course that you're discussing politics with a horrible and loathsome Democrat?

I agree that conservatives in general are not very good at communicating conservatism in a positive light. That was the gift that Ronaldus Maximus had: the ability to communicate a positive conservative vision for the future and have others want a piece of that vision.

Contrast the message of a shining city on the hill with the GOP message of the 2006 election: vote like your life depended on it, because it does. Not exactly a positive message to rally the troops, is it?

Practical politics is the key in my view. Part of that is communicating a positive message for conservative issues at the grassroots level.

There are so many areas where conservative ideas and values are doing so well for so many people that it's just a crying shame that conservatives can't seem to communicate that.

[Cicero]

Iran is a major problem, but we could have cut the Syrian regime off at the knees a couple of years ago, without breaking into a sweat. Now the window of opportunity appears to have closed.

It's a real suggestion to buy some of the news media. Just about the only media that gave clinton any problems during his reign in office were the supermarket tabloids. He responded by having one of his stooges buy all of them up, and since then they've been under Democrat control too.

[Tolik]

I'd like to see the numbers, because standard dems reply is that papers are OWNED by reach and filthy republicans. The editorial boards, is a different animal completely. But I'd like to know if the ownership claim has anything in it.

[Cicero]

I think that the official Democrat position is that anyone who is stinking rich must automatically be a Republican exploiter of the masses.

But a little investigation reveals that probably the majority of rich people are now Democrats. An odd transformation. The ancient WASP establishment is no more. Yuppies rule the roost. Even the old money families have drifted left, in my experience.

[denydenydeny]

what rich Republicans need to do is stop paying for thousand-dollar-a-plate fundraising dinners and start buying up newspapers and networks. The Democrats already own almost all of them, and we have seen in this election how a prosperous economy can be concealed and a successful war can be turned into a "disaster" when you own the public's primary sources of information.

Nails it, nails it, nails it.

As I have always said here, we proclaim the death of the MSM at our peril.

And Orson Scott Card is the best.

[tarheelswamprat]

I'd like to see the numbers, because standard dems reply is that papers are OWNED by reach and filthy republicans. The editorial boards, is a different animal completely. But I'd like to know if the ownership claim has anything in it.

With respect, you both, as well as most folks on this forum, have fallen into the trap of allowing your focus to be misdirected onto the false idea that the political parties, Democrats and Republicans, are the decisive factors in determining national policy. They are merely the tools and puppets of the oligarchical elite which owns and controls them both, as well as the MSM.

Both political parties serve that oligarchy, not the citizens of this country, and whenever the "natives (that's us) become restless" and veer off in directions contrary to their desired agenda, they will always join forces and, with the aid of the Media, lie, distort, demonize, or do whatever else it takes to manipulate and shape "public opinion" to nudge us back into line.

With regards to the specific question of who owns the newspapers and other MSM, the answer is: it's both sides - some are Repubs and some are Dems, but that distinction is a false, meaningless and irrelevant one. The specific term which explicates the true power relationship is called an "interlocking directorate".

If you get copies of the Annual Corporate Reports which all these corporations issue to their stockholders and examine the names which appear on the rolls of the Boards of Directors you will begin to notice some curious "coincidences". Many of the same names which appear as Board of Director members on such supposedly right-wing, Republican controlled corporations as Halliburton will also appear as Board Members of supposedly left-wing Democrat controlled corporations as Time-Warner. With a few acknowledged exceptions, this pattern is replicated throughout the directorships of the major corporations in this country. The same is also true of the Boards of Trustees of the major academic institutions.

What you have is a wealthy, well-connected elite (oligarchy) which is well-entrenched in all the institutions with the actual power to buy and control both the political parties and the Mainstrean Media, and thus the power to determine national policy. The fact that some of these people are Republicans and some of them are Democrats is essentially irrelevant.

[Tolik]

I see a meaningful difference between republican and democratic parties. But I myself prefer to draw distinction between conservatism+libertarianism under one quite large umbrella and leftists on another side. I even try to avoid the word liberal in order not to confuse with the classical liberalism.

I see MSM as dominated by leftists with good socialist leaning. I also don't subscribe to the "oligarchy controls everything" idea. Of course, money matter and a lot. But American society has unprecedented vertical mobility, plus the Internet age only increases freedom and helps to expose behind the scene manipulations. So, for the big money present in different organizations' boards, I see it more as their money-making interest, not a conspiracy.

[tarheelswamprat]

I also don't subscribe to the "oligarchy controls everything" idea.

That's okay. The oligarchs prefer it that way - it makes their job much easier.