 |
 |
 |
 |
   |
 |
| page 2
of 6 |
|
|
|
 |
And there was a third thing in September,
namely the opening of the mid-term election campaign.
That's connected. Karl Rove, the Republican campaign manager
and one of the most important people in Washington, informed
party activists over the summer that if they allow social
and economic issues to be in the forefront of the campaign,
they're going to lose, because the [administration’s]
social and economic policies are very harmful to most
of the population and very unpopular. So, he said, "We
have to focus the campaign on security." If you can
frighten the population, they will rally around the man
presented as the powerful leader who will protect them
from destruction. And then maybe "we can hold on
to political power." And that's exactly what was
done.
So, you had these three things at once: The National Security
Strategy announcing the plan to dominate the world permanently,
by force if necessary; the test case, to invade a defenseless
country that's worth controlling; and three, the effort
to maintain a very narrow hold on political power, so
that they can ram through an extremely reactionary domestic
agenda, which is basically rolling back the progressive
legislation of the past century-- literally, and very
consciously. [The domestic agenda] is serving the interests
of very narrow sectors of power, and it is very unpopular,
but you can get away with it if you can frighten people.
Iraq was used to frighten the population, and it worked.
There was a major government media campaign and, within
a month about 60% of the population thought that Iraq
was an imminent threat to the United States. We had to
defend ourselves from Iraq. Around the world that's laughable.
Even Kuwait didn't believe that. In fact, no one did.
But in the United States it worked.
Within a couple of months more, about half the population
or more came to believe that Iraq was responsible for
September 11th, and that it was planning new terrorist
attacks. And these views, as you'd expect, are very closely
correlated with support for war. And that's understandable.
I mean, if people think that there's this monstrous country
about to destroy us, that it had already carried out the
September 11th attacks, and that it is planning new ones,
well, we've got to defend ourselves. That way they could
get some support for war. Not a lot, but some.
All of that has happened since, and it's continuing. The
Republican Convention was delayed until mid-September
2004, the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
That will be the opening of the presidential campaign,
which has to follow the same strategy. In fact, Karl Rove
has already announced that for the presidential campaign
they're going to have to focus on George Bush, the great
war leader who saved us from terrorism and from Iraq.
And there will probably be some new dragon to slay at
that time, and we've got to defend ourselves from him.
[The message will be:] Don't pay any attention to the
fiscal train wreck that we are consciously creating, which
is going to force us (because we want to do it) to dismantle
Social Security and Medicaid, and Medicare and other social
services. [Or to policies] that transfer wealth-- even
more than in the past-- into the pockets of a very narrow
sector, and a rather corrupt sector of corporate power.
Don't pay any attention to that. Just pay attention to
the fact that we're going to defend you from disaster.
The victory was declared in Iraq on May 1st, in a carefully
stage-managed event on the U.S. aircraft carrier, the
Abraham Lincoln, where Bush was flown in wearing battle
gear. They had to position the ship properly so they had
the right background at sea and so on. It was kind of
a joke but it was taken seriously, except by the serious
press like the Wall Street Journal, which pointed out
in its report that this wasn't the end of the Iraq war;
it was the opening of the election campaign. It's the
preparation of the carefully crafted cowboy leader in
his battle gear, who is going to protect you and who already
saved you from Iraq, which was just about to destroy us.
And he is now going to save you from the next dragon.
They said this is the opening of the presidential campaign,
which is correct. [The Republican convention] will be
in New York in mid-September [2004], which is not accidental.
You can just imagine how the public-relations system is
already planning to present it. And it's conscious, and
they're not secret about it. They actually tell us. And
the better press, like the Wall Street Journal, points
it out. So, yes, all of these things are connected.
The attack on domestic programs is a very serious matter.
For these people that's quite important. The core program
is a huge tax cut for the very wealthy. There's nothing
much for anyone else, but for wealthy and privileged people
it's a huge savings. This is combined with a sharp increase
in the federal budget, a big increase in government expenditures,
a lot of which is called "military"--but, remember,
that means high-tech industry generally, under the cover
of the military. So, there is a huge increase in government
spending for high technology and the military, combined
with a sharp cutback in revenues because of the tax cuts
for the wealthy. Of course, this leads to what's called
"a fiscal train wreck."
Their own economists have estimated the costs. They expect
a $44 trillion dollar fiscal deficit—a fiscal gap
of unpaid bills. And that's purposeful. When the White
House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, was asked about this in
a news conference: "Is this $44 trillion dollar figure
correct? " He said, "Yeah." And that means
that Congress will have to be "responsible"
about Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security benefits and
so on. When he says, "be responsible," he doesn't
mean introduce progressive taxation to deal with the problems;
he means cut [those social programs].
They can't come before the country and say, "Elect
us because we want to cut back everything that benefits
the general population." But, they can come before
the country, they think, and say, "Because we're
defending you from imminent disaster, we had to spend
all this money, and there's just nothing left for all
these things you'd like. We'd love to give them to you,
but it's a fiscal disaster and we have to be responsible.
And so you're going to have to cut back your wages and
benefits and so on. And don't look at those rich people
over there who are having a ball." |
|
|
|
|
All materials on these pages
are copyrighted by SIGLO Ltd.All rights reserved.Text
(c) Noam Chomsky.
No part of these pages, either text or image, may be used
for any purpose other than personal or educational use.
Contact us:siglo@cine.co.jp |
 |
 |
|
|
|
