loosie: words: Clanton's Rant

Clanton's Rant

Conflatulence: Hugo=Saddam=Hitler.

by Clanton McNeese | 2006.02.23

When Donald Rumsfeld slid Hugo Chavez and Adolph Hitler into the same sentence, it was not a slip of his septuagenarian tongue. It was rather a loyal old dog proving that he remained a master of one of the Bush administration’s oldest tricks: assault by association. It does not matter that Hitler died before Chavez was born, nor that the global aspirations of the two men could scarcely be more dissimilar. What matters is that Rumsfeld associated them by saying that both were “elected legally,” a charge he could equally have made against both George Bushes, Ronald Reagan, and Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, the one person of the group not elected was Hitler, who was appointed to his position, as was Rumsfeld.

It’s a tricky rhetorical device called “conflation,” in which issues, events, or, in this case, human beings are thrown together to suggest a connection. It’s why President Bush so frequently uttered “Saddam Hussein” and “9/11” in the same breath. Careless listeners, of which the United States obviously has no shortage, caught the intended message: Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade Center. Of course, once the invasion of Iraq went sour, Bush denied fingering Saddam for 9/11. Technically he was correct. That’s the beauty of conflation, the intellectual equivalent of slinging shit at someone while keeping the stench off your own hands.

Conflation is ideal for misleading the lazy and inattentive. It is also ideal, however, for encouraging laziness and inattentiveness among its users. Conflation contributes to the absense of debate among Bush staffers. Conflation encourages the administration’s hostility to recognized experts in science, economics, law, and history. When Bush balances creationism and evolution in a single sentence, he signals their scientific equality. When he yokes together tax cuts and budget reduction, he implies a causal relationship.

United in their opposition to honest inquiry and their commitment to political survival, Bush’s confidantes form an insular little group. After Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, or Chertoff have spoken, their phrases are immediately parroted by the eager underlings who exist only to fill out the chorus. It’s a simple strategy: if enough people agree to say the same stupid stuff, Americans will surrender common sense and support stupidity.

All of the administration tactics, so effective in gaining and holding the White House for Bush, have contributed mightily to the dumbing down of America. Afoot in the land is an acceptance of a mindless egalitarianism: truths are revealed not only through study or experiment, but also through faith, and one truth is just as good as another. So it is that Kansas, the geographical heart of this ignorant heartland, boldly teaches nonsense to its children. But the land of Toto is not alone. Consider what passes for discussion on the plethora of national news channels: spokesperson A says X is true; spokesperson B says X is false; the host breaks for a commercial message.

But I have begun to conflate issues. Bush did not actually create all those Americans who are so easily duped. He merely prospered through their gullibility. Did he have a role model? I can’t say for sure. All I know is that when faced by a grieving, angry nation, Bush invented an enemy to blame and a cause to support. Similar actions were taken many years ago by another leader who, according to Rumsfeld, was elected, just like Hugo Chavez.

Rumsfeld evidently holds an unfavorable opinion of Chevez, who does regularly enrage much of corporate America with his threats to seize foreign assets on behalf of the Venezuelan citizens. But I have a different opinion, and for good reason. Each time I catch sight of Hugo on the news, he is wearing a sweater, not like Hitler or Bush, but just like Mr. Rogers.