On Sunday afternoon (July 23), while I was minding my own business and basking in the glow of yet another Twins victory, I received a call from a representative of Newt Gingrich. The caller asked me to listen to a message from the former congressman and then provide feedback to a special statement he had made. The political message in itself was astounding in that Gingrich, seemingly oblivious to the disastrous results of six years of right-wing lunacy, asked that we all join him to make America more conservative.
Now, this is perhaps the usual approach of political marketing - find the base and mine it for all it is worth. What was disturbing, however, was that after the inane personal appeal, the representative asked me for my opinion on Gingrich's statement that the current troubles in the Middle East represented the beginning of "World War III."
I was so stunned by this that I merely replied that I thought it was "a little early to start thinking in those terms." After this call, however, I began to be troubled by the implication of the disgraced congressman's words. This term, bandied about on our 24-hour propaganda network called Fox News, might seem to be the vanguard of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Presumably, if there is a World War III, we would be on one side. With our childish diplomacy, who would fight with us? Who would be on the other side? The sad, almost militant, ignorance displayed by Condoleezza Rice's statement that the violence in Lebanon was merely in the "birth pangs of a new Middle East" seems to assume that the United States merely has to help Israel wipe out Hezbollah, Hamas and every other dissatisfied element and "World War III" can be won. It appeals to those radio talk show callers who see the solution as being "we ought to go over there and just clean all them suckers out."
If Gingrich keeps it up, he just might get the support of the people he needs for the war he envisions.
ADVERTISEMENT
Gerald D. Anderson
Moorhead
