Propoganda Redux
Updated below
Take it from this old KGB hand: The left is abetting America's enemies with its intemperate attacks on President Bush.
Well, this certainly sounds like it should be a treat to read.
My father spent most of his life working for General Motors in Romania and had a picture of President Truman in our house in Bucharest. While "America" was a vague place somewhere thousands of miles away, he was her tangible symbol. For us, it was he who had helped save civilization from the Nazi barbarians, and it was he who helped restore our freedom after the war--if only for a brief while. We learned that America loved Truman, and we loved America. It was as simple as that.
Now, not to be a nitpicker, but I thought the reason that Bush kept comparing himself to Truman is because America at the time hated him, but history has over time turned him into a great President. The guy has barely started his article and he's already destroyed his premise. If America's reputation was really tied to how Americans felt about Truman, it would have started out the Cold War in a much worse position.
For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler--as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.
. . .
For once, the communists got it right. It is America's leader that counts. Let's return to the traditions of presidents who accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender from our deadly enemies.
Sometimes you just can't get away from your upbringing. Deifying your leader is the way of totalitarian governments the world over. America's great strength has ever been the ability to tear down leaders who were found wanting. The American President was never as important to his country as his Communist counterparts were to theirs. Back in the day when the US Constitution was still thought of as more than an obstruction to Executive Power, he was even supposed to be constantly checked by the other branches of government. Sometimes the head of the Free World did stink, but America remained strong because everyone knew he didn't count for everything; that he could be checked and balanced and ultimately replaced.
All of the Presidents the author lists were slammed and opposed on policies at home. None had the blank cheque those who continue to support Bush demand he should get. That oversight, that ability to recognize mistakes in time to correct them, the give and take and raucous debate, are what makes democracies so much better at governing.
When only the leader counts, you wind up where this ex-KGB employer's do, in the dustbin of history.
UPDATE:
One more point to this story. One of the reasons the, "criticizing the leader helps the enemy" meme continues to have such strength, is that it is at least partly true. If the people of a country doesn't support their leadership enough to follow it into battle, then defeat becomes far more likely. (Interestingly, it is that same point that gives weight to the "chikenhawk" meme, as in, if it's so damned important, why aren't you fighting for it?)
The difference between myself and the author above is that when the people's support isn't forthcoming, he blames the people for not following their "glorious leader", while I blame the leader for not providing sufficient reason to earn the following.
Back in April, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling wrote:
The general is responsible for estimating the likelihood of success in applying force to achieve the aims of policy. The general describes both the means necessary for the successful prosecution of war and the ways in which the nation will employ those means. If the policymaker desires ends for which the means he provides are insufficient, the general is responsible for advising the statesman of this incongruence. The statesman must then scale back the ends of policy or mobilize popular passions to provide greater means. If the general remains silent while the statesman commits a nation to war with insufficient means, he shares culpability for the results.
Bush has neither scaled back his desired ends, nor has he mobilized popular passion to provide greater means. While others at the top may share culpability, the responsibility lies wholly with the nation's leadership, not its public. To try and shift the blame to others in simply excuse-making of the worst kind.
I still hold to the conservative principal that people should take responsibility for their actions. It is shameful that the current leaders seem to have forgotten that.
