Elections as the summum bonum
Oliver North writes from Iraq:
The defeatists back home didn’t think it could be done. But today, the Iraqi people, only recently liberated from a repressive dictatorship, held their third election in the space of a year.So, what the defeatists thought was impossible was that three elections could be held in Iraq in a year. It’s having three elections in a year that signals that President Bush’s policy is a success.
What does this then suggest? It suggests that the way to keep certifying that Bush’s policy is a success is to keep having elections. Every time an election is held in Iraq, U.S. pundits can declare once again that Bush’s policy is a success.
The same logic is implied in Jim Geraghty’s therapeutic remarks I quoted earlier. Since it was the election itself that lifted Geraghty’s blues about Iraq, all we have to do is keep having regular and frequent elections, say, one every three months, to keep his spirits on a reasonably even keel.
In this unreal, neocon war, in which the evocation of symbols of democracy has replaced the goal of defeating a concrete enemy and defending our concrete civilization, what could make more sense?