I actually think it would be a lot easier knocking on doors in Iowa than sitting here in NH waiting for what happens next.
Be that as it may, the report on Cheney's speech in which he prognosticates a decades long war against "terrorism" or evil forces, or whatever, needs to be recognized for what it is: a strategy of generating unity among disparate people through what I refer to as "shared antagonism." The targets of this often irrational sensation may or may not be real. It doesn't matter. Antagonism, being a sensation, an emotional experience, doesn't need a real target to be activated. That's what makes it so useful. The sharing of this sensation is a satisfying end in itself--sort of like the feeling of brotherhood experienced by all those who hate broccoli. Indeed, uniting people in rejecting something is basically a cost-free strategy--at least to the participants. Which is what makes it so attractive.
It only becomes expensive when the targets of antagonism take umbrage and determine to seek revenge--not likely when the target is broccoli; more likely when the targets are proud Arabs.
"Shared antagonism" is different from "uniting against a common enemy" in that the latter presupposes that the enemy is real, that there is some evidence of aggressive action or intent.
Now, while it is true that America has suffered aggression, the proof that the Bush administration is trafficking in "shared antagonism" can be found in the fact that the so-called "war on terrorism" is NOT directed at the actual aggressors or their surrogates. Rather, it is directed anywhere but the source--i.e. where the suicide hi-jackers actually came from, Saudi Arabia.
No, Saudi Arabia is our friend; even though it failed to protect our soldiers from being bombed in their residential compound and continues to insult our female military personnel with sexist restrictions. What can the Bush Administration be thinking?
Posted by Monica Smith at January 19, 2004 03:15 PM