There’s a very common meme that we could do a lot more if we weren’t constrained by a bunch of useless rules. Police could arrest more people and obtain more convictions, except for a bunch of bureaucratic crap holding them back; the military could win in Iraq except for these pansy-ass rules of engagement; the CIA could overthrow Iran, but some liberal would have a hissy-fit.

They do support his goals, and think his means will accomplish them. The problem is, they haven’t realized that there are no solid goals.

For example, there are right wingers who want us to do “more” in Iraq, so we can “win”. Do more of what? And that will help us win *how*, exactly? Well, war is about fighting, and fighting hard and nasty, so do more fighting, hard and nasty. And we’ll win *how*? Well, whoever fights the hardest and best wins, right?

They think winning a war just kind-of happens; you fight, and you win. The process is invisible to them. Ditto with the war on terror.

So, you’re right, it is the means that appeal to people, and the goals are nebulous, but neither Bush nor any of his followers have dug in and thought about what that means.

After the emergency, the autonomous parent might take the driver to court, but would also institute a review and correction of whatever contributed to the emergency 1]at home…. including the parent’s own culpability in not watching the child, or not adequately teaching the child about going into the street, and
2] beyond the home….. the need for more speed controls in the area, better ‘line of sight’ for drivers, tougher enforcements and exams and/or punishments for driving infractions……
After the emergency, the parent who lacked autonomy during the crisis might be particularly or exclusively attached to focusing on the wrong-doing of the driver if such a focus could avoid uncomfortable self-awareness.

I do not at all imply that the above is an analogy for 9/11 [that would be a scene where a driver purposefully hit the child to ‘punish’ the child’s family] I am trying to convey another point about the Bush supporters’ behavior, i.e., that they seem incapable of any view that includes awareness of ‘at home’ contributions to the crisis [Osama Bin Laden for years expressed Muslim anger about the Palestine situation and about our troops camped near the Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia. The Bush team’s dismissal of “Al Qaida Determined to Attack in US”, and then vacationing all month in August of 2001] or the ability to do what is functionally better in handling and reducing hostilities. The Iraq fiasco has actually increased jihadism.

So, to all the comments above that list the dynamics of Bush supporters [authoritarian family acceptance of abuse, vicarious pleasure in bully tactics, running on fumes of fear, can’t admit mistakes, hypnotically being ‘on God’s side, treating Padilla as a target for hate as a traitor to Christian faith and American culture, desperation to believe in ‘daddy’, traumatized by 9/11, surges of feeling power in those already angry and uncertain], I wanted to add this bit about autonomy or its lack. There is some element in Bush and in his die-hard supporters that covers up what has got to be felt as shameful, the inability to handle an emergency by doing the right thing.

One example: notice how Bush can’t see a difference between goals, strategies and tactics. To him, (and Friedman, but that’s beside the point), the world is flat - he cannot see (or does not want to bother to see) that there’s stuff in between intention and execution. Basically, these are people who do not trust (and have thus never learned to use) intellect; they only trust feelings (how else could a mediocre-to-abysmal junior college professor gain the reputation of “intellectual” simply by occasionally using big words and quoting the stray fact here and there?).

These people feel powerless because they have (rightly) perceived (and are busy denying) that the whole damn world is smarter than they are. Think Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda, but not as funny.

They were traumatized before 9/11, but 9/11 gave them a specific event to pin that trauma on — gave them a reason to reveal the anger already living inside them.

And Bush is the personification of the power they wish they had … power to control the elements that had been disrupting their lives all along, like the simple fact they live in an uncertain world with an uncertain future.

Bush speaks in certainties, is forceful, and unwavering. And most importantly, he allows his followers to imagine violence done in their name. When he condones torture, it is his followers who feel the surge of control over their enemies, as if they, themselves had the power and means to bend another person’s will to their own. What control! What power!

The casual supporter may be more numerous. I can identify with these folks; I wanted to believe in Nixon. It took a bunch of facts before I admitted what history now records about his conduct. A lot of people who identify with ‘conservative’ ideas are reluctant to look at the debacle that Iraq has become, and slow to see the domestic attack on the Bill of Rights. They were traumatized by Sept 11, and they are desparate to believe ‘daddy’ will keep them safe.

In my opinion, you treat these folks with patience, with objective facts, with reminders about the principles this country was founded on - as articulated by the founding fathers. I would underline that last phrase if I could. It’s not about what I think; it’s not about Bush as a person. It’s about where the country is, illustrated by the facts as they are - compared to the vision of the founding fathers for a free country which became a beacon to the world - and whose light and vision has dimmed.

Yet if you suggest to a rightie that maybe we should stick to interrogation methods that are less harsh but which have a better track record of obtaining accurate information, they get hysterical and accuse you of siding with jihadists.

100% AGREE!!!!

The “we need to extract information from them” meme is belied by their own behavior. Padilla no longer has ANY useful information to give interrogators - the clock started ticking the moment we announced his arrest on national TV 3.5 years ago - assuming he is a terrorist (my trust in these fools is worn out).

The idea, courtesy of Anne Althouse, that he “could blink coded messages” is too stupid for words - after 3.5 years of isolation and completely out of the loop, what information could he have?

I think Padilla, like JWL, is a special case, however, because of what he respresents to the hard-right - Padilla is a target of visceral hate because he is an American convert to Islam.

He offends them on SO MANY levels - not just a (alleged) traitor to the government and people, but a traitor even to his born Religion…and therefore to American Culture (as defined by the Culture Warriors) itself.

To them he is a traitor even if he is innocent of all charges.