Looking Forward to Armageddon

Rick Santorum, appearing on the Hugh Hewitt show, predicts "some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK" over the next eighteen months or so that are going to lead people to have a "very different view" of the war in Iraq and the vital importance of "confronting Iran in the Middle East." Avedon Carol wonders if it shouldn't "concern us that Republicans are constantly talking about how people will all wise up when the next terrorist attack at home comes?" After all, they seem to really be "looking forward to it, and they take great delight in the thought that, by God, people will see things differently when it happens."

There's really, even, a larger structural issue here. Namely that while clearly on some level the conservative movement would like to make the country safer from terrorism, on another level everyone knows that mass fear of foreign threats to Americans' physical security are a boon to the conservative movement's fortune. On the one hand, this creates systematic incentives to overstate the extent and nature of the real threats facing America. On the other hand, it creates systematic incentives to ensure that such threats as do exist are never ameliorated. In particular, it gives everyone a very strong self-interest in not understanding the extent to which overreacting can be counterproductive since both the overreaction itself and the counterproductive blowback may serve the interests of the Republican Party.

Comments

I won't hold my breath waiting for the wingnuts to excoriate Santorum for wishing something "bad" on the U.S. You know, the way they casually throw around such accusations at "libruls".

Posted by Kurzleg | July 11, 2007 9:15 AM

If I didn't know better, I might think that Bush started the war in Iraq to create more terrorists so that the threat facing America would be more acute, thereby affording conservatives an opportunity to constantly warn us about it, which would not only serve their electoral interests, but might also increase public support for their stated goal of remaking the governments of the Middle East.

Posted by Rich | July 11, 2007 9:22 AM

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but isn't this argument structurally parallel to those that conclude that Democrats actually want us to lose in Iraq?

Is the difference just supposed to be that in the Republicans' case charges of being willing to sabotage the good of the country for the good of the party are actually true, whereas in Democrats' case they aren't?

Posted by Brandon Claycomb | July 11, 2007 9:25 AM

Republicans argue that Democrats hope for disasters in Iraq. Now Dems argue that Republicans hope for terrorist disasters here. Of course people have mixed feelings. They say "I hope I'm wrong"; but if proved right, they naturally feel some justification mixed in with the larger disappointment.

Posted by Gary Sugar | July 11, 2007 9:28 AM

If only Congress had passed Santorum's bill to stop those crazy freedom-haters at the National Weather Service from giving the terrorists free forecasts!

Posted by Angry Sam | July 11, 2007 9:29 AM

I would point out that the existence of an incentive for repbulicans to exagerate the terrorist threat neccesarily entails their being an incentive for democrats to understate the threat, though that would be questioning their patriotism or some shit.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | July 11, 2007 9:31 AM

Please stop trying to understand this as rational discourse. No one wants a terror attack here. No on wants us to lose. This is not argument or rhetoric, it is just emotional manipulation. The next "terror attack" comes whenever Rove thinks Bush has a political problem. The next "the dems lost Iraq" won't come until a Democrat is president. For now its enough to say they want us to lose. So we have to fight them here or there or ... something else just as incoherent.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | July 11, 2007 9:40 AM

"If I didn't know better..."

What, you don't think Republicans would start war solely to improve their own political fortunes? Why, again, did the US invade Grenada? And Bush Sr. certainly preferred a military resolution to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait to a diplomatic resolution.

There really is a school of thought in the Republican party that thinks that they are more popular when wars are being fought, and thus they should pursue wars. As for W., he's definitely in the business of using "terror" to scare the bejeezus out of Americans. Compare and contrast the "terror alerts" of 2004 with those of 2005.

Posted by Whispers | July 11, 2007 9:48 AM

Tommie Franks predicted essentially a dictatorship following the next large-scale terrorist attack. Bush and Cheney have been molding a despotic executive office.

These things are neither accidental nor casual.

Democrats don't hope for disaster in Iraq: they describe the disaster which is Iraq.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 11, 2007 9:49 AM

Sometimes you just have to be realistic.

Back in 2001, Bush and Cheney were plotting an attack on Iraq, but they didn't have a pretext yet for making such an attack.

It would be absurd not to realize that when our intelligence agencies were flashing red and had their hair on fire, Bush and Cheney didn't think "That would be absolutely terrible if there was a terrorist attack here...that we could blame on Iraq."

Face it, these are really bad people.

Posted by serial catowner | July 11, 2007 10:03 AM

ut isn't this argument structurally parallel to those that conclude that Democrats actually want us to lose in Iraq?

Perhaps to Avedon Carol's argument, but not to Matt's. MY is saying that Republicans benefit from an increased fear of terrorism. The complement to this is that Democrats benefit from a decreased fear of terrorism, either by the actual threat having diminished, the popular perception of the threat diminishing, or the threat and perception staying the same but people learning to live with it.

Posted by kth | July 11, 2007 10:22 AM

Gee, I wonder if those were the elements that went into the inexplicably clever retreat of Osama bin Somebody and his eight hundred and his easy entry into Pakistan through a border that Rumsfeld refused to guard, over a path that Franks refused to bomb. But of course, Tora Bora is just one of those things we're gonna have to forget.

Posted by roger | July 11, 2007 10:23 AM

Jeffrey Davis,
Franks thought the Chimpenfuhrer was the greatest thing since both were Texans. As far as Man-on-Dog Santorum, aren't the Dems polling even with the Repubs as far as national security? All they have left is fear.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | July 11, 2007 10:32 AM

Re "Tommie Franks predicted essentially a dictatorship following the next large-scale terrorist attack. Bush and Cheney have been molding a despotic executive office. "
----------
In which case, they WILL be fighting the terrorists here. Only they won't be Islamic terrorists.

Posted by Don Williams | July 11, 2007 10:36 AM

MY is saying that Republicans benefit from an increased fear of terrorism.

The point is that, structurally, it's the same argument as saying that Democrats want us to lose in Iraq, based on the fact that Democrats benefit if Iraq goes badly.

I don't think Democrats want us to lose in Iraq, and I don't think most Republicans want another terrorist attack. But the main difference is that Democrats aren't going around saying "Iraq is going to go badly, and then you'll see that our foreign policy is the right one!"

Posted by Steve | July 11, 2007 10:37 AM

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but isn't this argument structurally parallel to those that conclude that Democrats actually want us to lose in Iraq?

No, because they are lying. We've never said one single thing that indicates that we support the terrorists, that we want to lose in Iraq, that we supported Saddam, that we have even the slightest thing in common with Al Qaeda - you name it, they are making it up out of whole cloth.

But they are saying that they will benefit from another attack on the United States. The Santorum quote is actually more subtle than some of the other things they've been saying to each other about how we "need" another attack on America so that the public will go along with their plans.

Posted by Avedon | July 11, 2007 10:38 AM

It's rather depressing to contemplate one of the nation's two major political parties is basically a protection racket -- "Nice country you got here. Shame if anything were to 'happen' to it."

Posted by Davis X. Machina | July 11, 2007 10:40 AM

Davis X. Machina, have I ever told you how much I faunch to have you inhabit the comments at my blog?

xxx
Your fan,
AC

Posted by Avedon | July 11, 2007 10:42 AM

I think there's a strong argument to be made that the incentives for the GOP for "victory" in Iraq run the same way as "victory" over terrorism. That is, the Republicans are actually better off with Iraq moving in the present direction than with the cakewalk that was publically predicted.

With our loss in Iraq--especially if it can be delayed until January 2009--not only do defense contractors get the sweet end of a tax-paid spending spree to replace all the equipment chewed up in the desert, but also conservatives get to hammer home the meme that the "liberals turned their backs on the brave boys." Anything bad that happens anywhere--shit, every sparrow's fall--will be blamed on liberal weakness.

With "victory," the fabulists on the right would be left spinning reality, including whatever grim aftermath might come. In defeat, they can concoct any scenario no matter how absurd, as long as it follows "If only the liberals had let us win in Iraq . . . ." Indeed, since the public broadly supports the Democratic position on virtually every issue, such resentment is the only hope that conservatives have in the coming decade.

Think of it as losing meaningless games at the end of the season to get a better draft pick.

Posted by jlw | July 11, 2007 10:44 AM

Ask yourself this: Why has there been no attack within the US since 9/11? Surely it's not because Homeland Security is so sharp, or because we locked up every terrorist in the world at Gitmo, or because Al Queda is shaking in their boots at the prospect of Bush/Cheney's anger.

No. Al Queda decided, as a matter of geo-strategy, that it was going to attack US allies in an effort to separate them from the US, while not drumming up support for the US by attacking America directly. In Spain this worked. In England they've been less successful...so far.

Compared to that logical tactical strategy by our enemy, we have Santorum wishing they were as stupid as we are, wishing that they'd commit a huge portion of their resources to as counter-productive a strategy as we have.

That's the GOP leadership for you. They won't get smarter, so they hope for our enemies to get dumber.

Posted by cp | July 11, 2007 10:58 AM

Many of these arguments warning of terrorist attacks are akin to those who warn of imminent, global financial collapses. If you dig a little deeper for those warning of economic doom, you find that what they actually are doing is hoping for an economic catastrophe because it will create a world that they no longer feel so alienated from and force the world to abandon a lifestyle in favor of the one they wish the world had adopted (eg, the gold standard, a more agrarian economy, and end to big-box stores, etc.). Similarly, mass terrorist attacks in the US world, in the fanatsies of many, create the clarity of purpose, support for unbridled executive authority, and endless war that some people crave.

These warnings of huge threats to the purity of essence of our precious bodily fluids coming from Santorum aren't rooted in the nature of the actual threat. Rather, it's an expression of frustration from Santorum and other conservatives that the country isn't in the ideological and policymaking place that they wished it were. Perhaps they're not hoping that a terrorist attack will hit, but they're certainly hoping that the fear of one would cause Americans to become more ideologically in line the Santorum, et. al.'s policy ideals.

Posted by Tyro | July 11, 2007 11:22 AM

Ask yourself this: Why has there been no attack within the US since 9/11?

Hmm...because, in an attempt to foster a culture of fear, al-Qaeda's capacity to conduct large-scale attacks has been vastly overstated by the Bush administration and its journalistic stenographers? No, that couldn't possibly be it.

Posted by James Gary | July 11, 2007 11:35 AM

Al Queda decided, as a matter of geo-strategy, that it was going to attack US allies in an effort to separate them from the US, while not drumming up support for the US by attacking America directly.

AQ is pretty much out of business except as a brand label. There is no coherent strategy there. I think what's keeping anyone from taking up the job here if they go from blowing up the pentagon and the WTC to killing a few people blowing themselves up on trains in NY or DC it shows they are losing.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 11, 2007 11:36 AM

I wonder if the next terrorist attack will really help the conservatives politically or whether it will just be marked down as another example of their incompetance. Remember, 9/11 happened early enough in the Bush presidency so that people were inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on whether he could have prevented it. If something were to happen now,, we can only blame the Bushies for it.

Posted by Guscat | July 11, 2007 1:03 PM

Matt has had the "Ah Hah" moment on the driving little engine that has motivated so much since early winter 2002 when Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove, surprised and amazed at the swift success in Afghanistan and looking at 70% approval ratings with dreams of "permanent Repubilcan Majority" dancing in their heads, started the ball rolling with the Iraq Adventure.

Howerver, just because we are ruled by idiots, doesn't mean we don't have real enemies. Lawrence Wright's "the Looming Tower" and many other reality community based books and article document that these groups exist and do wish to harm us.

But dealing with the threat hysterically, in a way that dishonors or country and reduces of us to the same moral level as our enemies, primarily as a way to demagogue one way's to political power while acting basically indifferent to the real threat, is what the Movement Conservatives and Christianists have done.

Fred Kaplan in Slate accurately and surmises that, based on yesterday's speech, that President Bush is no more acquainted with reality then he was 6 years ago.

My little, perhaps hysteric fear, is that if a Democrat is elected President in 2008, Cheney will tell Bush that it just would not be "responsible" to turn over the Government to a "cut and run," terrorist sympathizing, Democrat and that the Constitution would have to be destroyed to save it.

Posted by Rick | July 11, 2007 1:22 PM

What, you don't think Republicans would start war solely to improve their own political fortunes?

I thought that the sarcastic nature of my post was obvious...

Posted by Rich | July 11, 2007 1:38 PM

This sounds eerily like Santorum knows about some sort of false-flag operation in the united states...

Posted by soullite | July 11, 2007 2:43 PM

Matt writes:

Both the overreaction itself and the counterproductive blowback may serve the interests of the Republican Party.

We call that Republican autocoprophagia.

And so far, it's worked out very well for them.

Posted by lambert strether | July 11, 2007 4:51 PM

Any terror attack today is going to be blamed on the Bush administration. It's way too late to blame it on Clinton and the new Democratic Congress hasn't done anything (literally) that could be construed as blame-worthy. So if anyone on the Right is "hoping" for such a attack, they are presumably hoping it occurs around 2011 three years into the next (Dem) president's term and in time to be exploited for the election of 2012.

Posted by JonF | July 11, 2007 7:15 PM

You all are making several big mistakes here.
First, a prediction is a prediction, not wishfull thinking.
Second is that domestic politics makes a difference to Al Qaeda. AQ's stated goal is the destruction of America thru conversion to Islam, replacing consensual government with Shiria and rule-by-mullah.

Iraq is PART of a larger war, one that historians will call WW4, if we win. Muslims don't do history, so if we lose, there will be no more history. Cutting and running from Iraq will NOT end this war, no matter what you call it. All that will change is the location of tactical combat.
The Islamists say they will kill Americans where they can find them. The logic is that the place with the largest body of Americans waiting to be slaughtered is here, in America. So far Osama an his ilk have said what they were going to do AND THEN DID IT. So there is no reason to discount their threats to do suicide bombers here in the States.
This isn't a scare tactic, although if you live in New York, you should be scared. This is a prediction by conservatives, based on a promise by the Jihadists.
They only way to prevent New York from being nuked is by invading Iran. New Yorkers don't want to do that, and are leading the resistance to the idea of striking first.
I live in Alabama, so I really don't care. I suspect the rest of fly-over America doesn't either. When New York vanishes in a Pika-Dan, I will pop another beer.

Posted by typos_R_us | July 11, 2007 9:31 PM

Re: AQ's stated goal is the destruction of America thru conversion to Islam, replacing consensual government with Shiria and rule-by-mullah.

I have never heard Al Qaida or anyone in Islam state that this is their goal. To be sure they have made it plain that it is their goal to re-found a new (Sunni) Caliphate under some version of shari'a (there is no single shari'a code by the way) in the traditional lands of Islam, and this would include reclaiming territory like southern Spain that hold was "stolen" from Islam. But while they may exhort the whole world to acept Islam (much as zealous Christains do with Christianity) they have expressed no designs on outright conquest of territory they do not deem their own by historical right.
We might also consider how likley it is they could achieve that however. Desire, even fervent, fanatic desire, does not create the means to achieve it. If I announce tomorrow that I plan to depose the government, conquer Canada and Mexico, and crown myself God-Emperor of North America are you going to be trembling in your boots for fear of me?

Re: Muslims don't do history, so if we lose, there will be no more history.

Oh, good grief, put down the crack pipe! Guess what: Islam won a number of struggles in the past-- back when it had real armies and navies. First and foremost they took over a large part of the old Roman Empire, plus Persia. History did not end. The Ottomans conquered Constantinople and the Balkans. History did not end. The Mughals conquered most of India. Indian history did not end. You make these people sound like all-powerful aliens from some cheap, ill-written scifi thriller, not fallible, flawed humans whose best laid plans always go astray in the long run.

Re: So there is no reason to discount their threats to do suicide bombers here in the States.

So why haven't they? Not for lack of motive I would think. Can it be they are having some recruiting trouble, that outside a handful of true crazies (most of them in Palestine and Iraq) the number of people willing to blow themselves to kingdom come is vanishingly small, approaching zero?

Re: They only way to prevent New York from being nuked is by invading Iran.

How about we simply get serious about port security and stop anyone from importing a nuke into this country? Something BushCo has been appallingly lax about.

Re: When New York vanishes in a Pika-Dan, I will pop another beer.

Sic semper patriotismi.

Posted by JonF | July 11, 2007 10:11 PM

First, a prediction is a prediction, not wishfull thinking.

Almost invariably, people who predict mass catastrophies are frequently engaged in a bit of wishful thinking. Simply asserting this isn't so does not make it true. People who spent much time and money "preparing" for the Y2K disaster deep down wanted to live in a world where much of the world's technological infrastructure had collapsed. People who predict that the end of the housing bubble will bring much of the world economy down with it want to live in a world in which use of mortgages are limited and the gold standard is the norm for currencies.

It's a psychological quirk of people which makes listening to predictions such a pointless endeavor without lots of quantitative data to back it up.

When New York vanishes in a Pika-Dan, I will pop another beer.

This is exactly what I'm talking about-- people who breathlessly predict the vaporization of New York City, when pressed, will almost always admit that, deep down, they'd sort of like to see this happen... particularly as a way to stick it to the liberals and the, ahem, "upper west site elites" [nudge, nudge, wink, wink].

Posted by Tyro | July 12, 2007 9:51 AM

This is absolutely one of the most outrageous assertions I have yet seen. You are ascribing a WISH to Conservatives for the death of thousands, if not tens of thousands of our fellow citizens; for the likely economic damage of such an attack, etc., when that is the very outcome Conservatives have been so steadfastly fighting the myopic Left about for six years now--in order to AVOID just such a nightmare scenario.

Shame on you.

Posted by DiscerningTexan | July 14, 2007 3:00 PM