What they believe
The denialists, the twenty-eight percenters, the hard-core war supporters should not surprise or interest me, but they do.
Most generally, most broadly, their fierce determination is just what one should expect from such a minority. Recall that, at one time, Bush’s policies had wide support. As the realities & consequences of his administration and his policies became evident over time, many people reconsidered their support of him. Anecdotally, before the 2004 election, a co-worker of mine, a 2000 Bush voter, had become disenchanted; I was quite taken aback. More famously, the blogger Andrew Sullivan, gave up on Bush before 2004. Just using these bloggers as representatives of a trend, John Cole gave up in 2005, the Schiavo affair being the last straw. Me? I had to read several of the “Fiasco” series books in summer 2006, before I got it. (As an aside, is there even one book covering the history of the Iraq War that supports the denialists? I’d like to read it.)
At each stage of this progression, the remaining Bush supporters were, by definition, more persistent than those who had “fallen away from truthiness.” Just viewed demographically, they are more hard-core, more stubborn. Admitting error is difficult; admitting error after a long time is more difficult; doing so after a very long time is very difficult.
Here’s an example from the Times over the weekend: Militants Widen Reach as Terror Seeps Out of Iraq
The Iraq war, which for years has drawn militants from around the world, is beginning to export fighters and the tactics they have honed in the insurgency to neighboring countries and beyond, according to American, European and Middle Eastern government officials and interviews with militant leaders in Lebanon, Jordan and London. Some of the fighters appear to be leaving as part of the waves of Iraqi refugees crossing borders that government officials acknowledge they struggle to control. But others are dispatched from Iraq for specific missions. Estimating the number of fighters leaving Iraq is at least as difficult as it has been to count foreign militants joining the insurgency. But early signs of an exodus are clear, and officials in the United States and the Middle East say the potential for veterans of the insurgency to spread far beyond Iraq is significant.
Many people have suggested that the war in Iraq, if viewed as part of the war on terror (a perspective that the denialists insist upon and that has some merit), may very well be counter-productive. That is, unlike fighting Nazis, our actions in Iraq may actually be creating more Islamic terrorism than we are eliminating. I call it starfish-ripping. What will the denialists make of such evidence? Either ignore it or attribute the to the evil MSM, which, of course, is out to destroy America. And so it goes. Most likely, this report, if they do read it, will only confirm their dark view of the traitorous press.
People have to cope. As such evidence unfolds, we roughly have two choices: 1) keep denying reality (”Hummelgate!“), or 2) admit some error and most likely beat yourself up at least a little bit (much to INDC Bill’s annoyance, this is what people do).
All of this means that the denialists’ caterwauling and ever-stronger insistence on their own righteousness should not surprise me. But I’m a slow learner, and, at times, it does.
A related part of this (not necessarily the most important part of their armor-plate) is their view of the backsliders. … Uh-oh. The Andrew Sullivans, the John Coles, the Commissars. It’s possible for the denialists to view liberals and Democrats and such as “reasonable people with whom we disagree.” Such a view is possible, but not very common. 
On the other hand, what of the backsliders? People who once held their views? Could it be remotely possible that such people are also reasonable, intelligent people, who might have voted for Bush once or even twice, who perhaps are lifelong Republicans, and … after reading and thinking and considering the evidence have reluctantly concluded that the Bush administration has been pretty bad from the start? No. That is not a supportable perspective. It’s just too ruinous.
Rather, the backsliders must have at some point, mysteriously “gone nuts,” or all along have had some hidden character flaw that only now is revealed. By example, check out Goldstein and his commenters “Commissar excoriation” on this thread. I’m sure Cole and Sullivan and other backsliders had their similar moments of ritual banishment from the tribe.
“But … we are, THANK GOD, not Democrats.”
No related posts