There are many BlueThinking conservatives, and a comparable number of RedThinking liberals. The Red/Blue taxonomy adopted here reflects the fact that the two major parties themselves can reasonably be seen as adhering to their respective schools of thought in their platforms and narratives -- their public communications, which are completely unrelated to policy. In other words, the Reeps cater rhetorically to RedThink, and the Dems cater rhetorically to BlueThink.Let me reinforce that . . . I'm speaking here of the rhetoric employed by the parties, not the actual policies they employ. With that said, here's the essential rundown of the two views:
The essence of RedThink is persecution. "We" are constantly being pursued, hounded, attacked. "They" are malevolent, irrational, and evil. The only solution is to take the fight to "Them," to destroy "Them" before they destroy "Us." RedThink despises concepts like compromise, refuses to recognize fine distinctions or gray areas. You're either with "Us" or with "Them," and there can be no middle ground.Demonstrating the chasm between rhetoric and policy, reports are now coming to light on secret negotiations between the Iraqi government, the US Ambassador, and major insurgent groups. It appears that for all the apocalyptic RedThink rhetoric being pushed by the Reeps of late, the administration has bowed to the plain realities of BlueThink, and is on the verge of accepting the very compromise that their propagandists have constantly warned would send the wrong message to the terrorists and the world.
BlueThink assumes that people generally act rationally, act in their own interests, and will respond to reason. BlueThink acknowledges that people can disagree without coming to blows. The essence of BlueThink is compromise between rivals, less-than-ideal arrangements which are equitable to all parties involved and will maintain a sustainable peace, rather than plunge things into chaos.
In the language of RedThink, it appears that the administration is getting ready to cut and run.
The draft marks the first time the Iraqi Government has endorsed a fixed timeline for the withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq, a key demand of the Sunni insurgency.Withdrawal?
"We must agree on a timed schedule to pull out the troops from Iraq, while at the same time building up the Iraqi forces that will guarantee Iraqi security and this must be supported by a United Nations Security Council decision," the document reads.
One insurgent group involved in the discussions told The Times that the timetable for withdrawing foreign troops was key. "We are not against the formation of the new Iraqi goverment, but with certain conditions, which are to put a timetable for the pullout of US Troops," Abu Fatma, from the Islamic National Front for Liberation of Iraq, said.
WHAT THE F@CK!!!
What happened to the apocalypse? What happened to the great battle between good and evil? Now we're going to turn tail and run, just because the Iraqis want us to?
What happened to setting a timetable just tells the enemy they can wait us out? What happened to blow them all away, in the name of the Lord? When did Murtha get elected President?
By acknowledging reality, the administration has betrayed its base. Undoubtedly the party will field some argument that this agreement is some sort of victory . . . and, in fact, it is. It's a victory for those who've been saying that it's time to start talking about withdrawal. It's a victory for BlueThink. (Of course, they can't very well say that.)