Something I don't understand about the Republican position

[Cat Atomic]

I keep hearing Aznar acclaimed by right wingers for "facing down public criticism" in order to support Bush and the "western alliance", as they call it. He ignored the wishes of his constituency in order to back some foreign leader's crusade. He's praised for this.

At the same time, Americans who favor a multilateral approach in foreign affairs are called "weak", "traitorous", and a million other negative things. Republicans try to paint Kerry as a traitor simply for having contact with foreign leaders.

I don't see how they manage to hold these two positions at once. Can anyone help me here?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. There's a word for this....

I think it's called "hypocrisy".

[belle]

6. Also see: blackwhite, compartmentalization, and schizophrenia

[Cursive_Knives512]

2. I've never really thought of that...

When a politician goes against the wave, they're not being a true leader... they're not representing the people.

Thanks! I've never thought of that before.

[alcuno]

4. I think that world leaders have a responsibility to make their case.

Leadership is convincing people of the direction you want to take and persuading them to follow you. You could argue that Bush was able to lead Aznar, but Aznar was unable to lead his own people.

Leadership is not about going against the wave, it's about leading the wave along with you. In a representative government, it's a complete failure of leadership to go forward on your own opinion when 90% of the followers are against you.

[swag]

3. The real position is

that THE UNITED STATES IS THE BEST GODDAMMED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AND EVERYBODY BETTER JUST BOW DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP!

[RichM]

5. It works like this. If someone does something that serves US interests,

no matter what it is, it is called "good." If they do something that is CONTRARY to US interests, it is called "bad."

I hope this clears it up for you.

[arcane1]

7. I would just add that the term "US interests"...

does not necessarily, or even often, refer to the interests of the actual mass of US citizens. It most often refers to a small fraction of a percent of that mass.

To the republican, there is no distinction between the fraction and the whole

[RichM]

8. Yes, that's right. It's a very important point, too.

I was considering pointing that out, but passed on it, in the effort to be glib.

[arcane1]

9. cool, we both got to be glib

:)

[ComerPerro]

10. They can hold any position necessary

This is for two reasons:

They don't have to think about their positions. They think what they are told to, nothing more.

and

They never really debate or defend their position. Ever debated a conservative? All they do is spew out lies and talking points, and repeat them over and over.

[Cat Atomic]

11. That's the truth.

It's just "talking point, talking point, insult, repeat".