My prediction, when Cameron and Obama backed down, was partly expressed this way:
I suggest that these backdowns, these executives bowing to their legislatures, is intended to be seen a symbolic return to the rule of law. A return to deliberation and thoughtfulness, in contrast to cowboy recklessness. Indeed, in appearance, these leaders are ‘listening to the people’…
I’ve been surprised at how quickly confirmation is emerging for my prediction. Media spin defines what ‘is intended to be seen’, and media spin is going right down the path I outlined. For openers, here’s something from the Washington Post, 2nd September:
Obama’s surprising decision to seek congressional approval, announced Saturday, marks a turning point from recent history, in which presidents have given lawmakers less and less of a role in deciding when and how to take the country to war. Obama was elected in part as a rejection of the George W. Bush administration’s push to invade Iraq a decade ago.
The backdown was unusual, but so are the issues around attacking Syria. The backdown could be seen as a one-time thing, a special case, requiring consultation. But no – this is a “turning point”, because a mainstream paper says so.
Here’s another Post article, from the 3rd:
Today is a time of great mistrust of government at home and abroad, and that has to be recognized. The old claim about holding back evidence to protect U.S. intelligence’s “sources and methods” no longer works.
So another turning point is announced: not only is consultation to be the new norm, but withholding evidence details “no longer works”. That’s quite a generalization, while Congressional deliberations are still going on, and leaders on both sides of the aisle have already expressed support for an attack. How can the Post be sure that “it no longer works” is the new order of things?
Finally, here are three snippets from an article in today’s Post:
On Saturday, Obama asked for congressional approval to punish Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons. By extension, he invited the American public into the decision as well, as lawmakers turned to their constituents for guidance and political cover.
In meetings with lawmakers, voters gamely tried to tackle the kind of problem usually reserved for situation rooms in Washington. Cops tried to apply the logic of police work to the situation in Syria. Teachers applied the lessons of classroom discipline. Regular people thought through the same ugly chains of cause and effect that presidential advisers had.
Normally, Tom Farrell of West Hartford would not have a role in a real-time decision to use American military force. Neither, for that matter, does his congressman.
Now, they do.
Wow! Obama consults Congress on a war & peace issue, as he should alway have done, and a few days later ordinary people “have a role in a real-time decision”! In less than a week we go from autocratic brinksmanship to direct democracy. How fast things are changing. The media spin is making my head spin.
It’s like when 9/11 happened, and they already on the morning had the names of the hijackers, the cave-dwelling ring leader, and Al Qaeda itself – which none of us had every heard of before. Suspiciously quick detective work. Now, from one unusual move by Obama, the official pundits tell us we’re in a whole new political environment. Suspiciously quick assessment. The Post is confident of its far-reaching assessment because the editors were told this is the new party line, by the same people who orchestrated the crisis and the backdown.
Obama’s backdown is now being explicitly framed in the media as a People-vs-Establishment confrontation. Who’s the hero in the above article? – clearly it’s The People. The President turned to Congress for guidance, Congress is turning to The People, and The People are ‘considering the issue sensibly’. For the first time, The People have a ‘role in real-time decisions’. And from the tone of the article, the impression is given that we should expect a better decision this way.
My next prediction is that the House will vote No to intervention, giving us the next big drama point in the script. After that ‘big surprise’, the media spin will continue down the path I outlined in Obama’s backdown & the NWO Project. We’ll see phrases like, ‘historical turning point’, ‘revitalized democracy’, ‘return to the rule of law’, ‘new era of openness’, etc. It will be interesting to see how Obama’s character is being scripted. Will he be allowed to regain his ‘man of the people’ image, or will they make him a tarnished symbol of the autocratic old days? He could play either part equally well.
Another interesting thing will be to see how quickly the focus shifts from Washington politics to breakthroughs in international relations. That’s obviously the next dramatic event in this script. When the House votes No, then clearly we’ll need to move on to some other way of ‘doing something’ about Syria. And in this new era the media is telling us about, where democracy is revitalized and the rule of law prevails, the obvious way to move forward will be to go to the UN Security Council with the intention of reaching an honest and open agreement with Russia and China about how to proceed. Suddenly, instead of attacks being always ‘on the table’, real negotiations will be ‘on the table’ for a change.
Wouldn’t these developments give people warm & fuzzy feelings? The same feelings a mark gets, when the con-man takes his money, and the mark thinks he’s just bought the Brooklyn Bridge for a song.
beware of elites bearing gifts,