bushco are quite committed to what naomi klein helpfully named as the politics of identity branding. here is a snippet from an interview she did in which she outlines the idea:
Quote:
The Democrats didn't fully understand that the success of Karl Rove's party is really a success in branding. Identity branding is something that the corporate world has understood for some time now. They're not selling a product; they're selling a desired identity, an aspirational identity of the people who consume their product. Nike understands that, Apple understands that, and so do all the successful brands. Karl Rove understands that too.
So what the Republican Party has done is that it has co-branded with other powerful brands ? like country music, and NASCAR, and church going, and this larger proud-to-be-a-redneck identity. Policy is pretty low on the agenda, in terms of why people identify as Republicans. They identify with these packets of attributes.
This means a couple of things. One, it means people are not swayed by policy debates. But more importantly, when George Bush's policies are attacked, rather than being dissuaded from being Republicans, Republicans feel attacked personally ? because it's your politics. Republicanism has merged with their identity. That has happened because of the successful application of the principles of identity branding
|
source:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21099/
the facts of the matter that klein refers to are not new, nor is she presenting anything like a systematic analysis in this interview to back up her characterization--but she does give identity branding as a nice tag, and that tag fits very well with the patterns developed by the right.
so it follows: rove et al find themeselves in a no-win situation: if they acknowledge anything of substance concerning this administrations consistent abuse of its power under the pretext of its "war on terror" the administration is fucked--they cannot defend themselves in anything like a debate about the merits of their actions or their rationales in which they do not control the terms of debate. and they are sweating the midterm elections. so what do you get? the nytimes is disloyal. they attack the person of the president, the collective person of the right, and so should themselves be attacked--by attacking in this manner, the hope obviously is to divert attention away from the substance of this and any number of other such allegations concerning the administration's contempt for the rule of law.
the move is directed at the republican base.
its logic follows from the centrality of identity branding to republican politics.
it resonates with the "liberal media" canard that the right has been tossing about for years now to spare its faithful the vertigo of having to face information they do not like.
you would think, however, that this kind of abuse of power would alienate even further the entire libertarian element of the right's populist coalition.
it'll be interesting if the right's politics of identification trumps any appreciation of the content of the administration's actions--in the financial tracking, its use of wiretaps, its attempts to ignore the geneva convention in the context of guantanomo and "renditions" on and on and on.
from an outside perspective, the roveresponse to the nytimes seems lunatic.
what makes me shudder is that it could well resonate out there.