Bait and Switch Tactics in American Politics and the Iraq War
September 30th, 2007Today is Sunday, which means it’s time for the Sunday Morning Strategic Discussion (I’ve really got to work on getting it done before noon). Bait and switch tactics are used all the time in politics today, and there was a great example several days ago with the reaction to the Moveon.org advertisement about General Patraeus.
A bait and switch in retail is when a business offers a product at below cost, but then says the item is out of stock and offers a different item at a higher price. It works because people are willing to pay a higher price to overcome the disappointment of not getting the original item.
In politics the bait and switch is when a group makes a big deal about an issue to shift damaging attention away from themselves. It almost always works.
The reason it works is because the switch issue chosen is something that can be framed in terms of principles that are universally held. In the General Betray Us issue, the Republican party tends to choose an issue they can frame in patriarchal terms such as respect, responsible, morality, honor, and hero. No politician wants to be seen as against those issues.
Democrats tend to choose issues such as Bush’s veto of child health care, that can be framed in terms like giving, caring and children.
Clearly neither party wants to tackle the most important issue at hand, which is getting the US out of Iraq. There are plenty of voters who no longer want us in Iraq, but not a lot of people who think it is a good idea to pull out and leave the country in shambles.
It’s an intractable problem, and the people that come up with a strategy to fix it will gain a lot of political capital. Only there may not be a solution. If history is any guide, occupying forces only succeed if they are ruthless enough to commit virtual genocide and maintain total control over information (such as China in Tibet), a tactic that few in the US or the rest of the world would sit still for.
I don’t have a strategy for getting out of Iraq, and in my experience most people have nothing to suggest. Difficult though it may be, I think it’s time we started to consider solutions. Let’s start with goals. Part of the difficulty of the situation is that we don’t share common goals. Depending on your political leanings, you may think our current goal in Iraq is any or all of the following:
- Fight terrorism
- Ensure cheap access to oil
- Spread Democracy
- Stabilize the country enough to leave
- Ensure global dominance
And many more I’m sure. Our views are so disparate on this subject that there is little wonder we have no coherent strategy for what we are doing in Iraq.
Every analyst of the Iraq War focuses on what is wrong in Iraq, but I have a different take that people don’t want to hear: we won’t be out of Iraq until we fix our own problems. Most importantly, until our fractured nation can arrive at some common ground.
Let’s start by looking at some alternative points of view. If you’re conservative, consider reading these posts:
If you’re liberal, start with some of these links:
And then there’s the libertarians:
Pretty crazy isn’t it? We will not be successful in Iraq until we reconcile these views. It may not seem like a big step, but until we have a common goal and reason for our existence in Iraq, we cannot begin to measure success or failure there, or determine how and when we should leave. There can be no real strategy.
If you have ideas about a strategy for Iraq, or a reason that you think we’re in Iraq that I missed, let me know. As always, I’ll post your responses next Sunday.
I’m tired of listening to both parties as they jockey to place blame. It’s time to shift the dialogue towards a solution.
- zot
Support The Decision Strategist.Popularity: 11%
November 15th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I found your site via your question at ZenHabits. You do have some interesting articles here. First I’d like to commend you on your bravery in asking questions about Zen and Buddhism and the perceived contradictions. I have been studying and reading about both for a few years and I am still just a beginner.
As for the above post, Iraq is a giant mess precisely because there are two modes of thinking that exist in the world right now. One (generally labeled “Right”) is of the opinion that while “Knowing is half of the battle”, the other half is violence. The second mode (generally labeled “Left”) is of the opinion that “Knowing is the battle, in fact there shouldn’t be a battle”; rather, let’s talk about our feelings and make sure that everyone gets the same size slice of the pie. The “Right” side takes for granted that some things (people, ideas, cultures) are better than others, and the inferior things must make way for the superior.
The “Left” side operates under the assumption that the universe is a ‘zero-sum’ game, and all things must be equal, if not then they must be equalized by penalizing the ’superior’ position.
This kind of dichotomy cannot be reconciled. The “Right” position is messy and inelegant (and just isn’t “fair”), the “Left” position suffers cognitive dissonance due to its faulty premises.
Thank you for putting up with the long comment.
November 15th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Stephen: I think I’m in full agreement with you. It seems to me that a lot of people are sick of both sides, and would like to see a third reasonable side emerge. I have envisioned some strange combination of the libertarian party and the green party…I haven’t worked out the details of how that would work out yet though.
Thanks for your comment and good luck with your practice. I’m more than a beginner myself. I think I’ve only sat in an official zazen twice. I wish there was a soto sect in my town.