Rumsfeldia: Fear and Loathing in the Decade of Tears

Status
Not open for further replies.
hold up Rummy targeted his fellow Republicans and centrist/center-right/center-left dudes but not the actual guys on the left?
Yeah, because they weren't quite numerous enough to pose a serious threat, but were still useful to keep around to split votes from the Democrats and point at in order to scare the suburban and rural voters who made up his base.
 
Yeah, because they weren't quite numerous enough to pose a serious threat, but were still useful to keep around to split votes from the Democrats and point at in order to scare the suburban and rural voters who made up his base.

That's why the likes of Bobby Rush could walk free, while poor John Connally was put in the mental asylum.
 
The far left was left alone because they were useful boogeymen to keep his base in line.
“The We the People Party will turn our nation to SOCIALISM”
“Yeah but how? All but two of their members are in jail?”

That’s kinda the thing, Rummy kept a lot of radical groups around (and worked with all of them to a certain extent) because they can all anger his bases.

If you’re an “average joe” who sees “urban” riots on the television every day and hates the WTPers, when Rummy calls them evul socialists, you’ll agree with him. If you’re a conservative Christian and despise “godless heathens” in Libertarian communes and states, you’ll appreciate Rummy bashing them. If you’re a more socially moderate person who doesn’t like the opposition for whatever reason but is real scared of the CVs, Rummy talking about “Jesus freaks” will give you confidence that he’s not off the deep end. It’s harder to gain that hatred when the opposition can be a more moderate primary opponent or some Bol Weevil/Clintonite from Louisiana or some shit.

If anything, that’s how Rummy stayed around for long enough. Sure, he’ll sell you out to big businesses, but he’s not a fucking cult, people who wanna legalize most drugs, or (perceived) rioters. Also Democrats are fucking incompetent. At that point, you can leave the country (which could prove difficult for a variety of reasons) or stay with the devil you have.

That actually brings up another point brought up in the TL. In some midterm, Rummy straightup rigged elections in Southern/rural Democratic seats while letting ones in urban northern cities slide. This wasn’t just to divide the left, it was to make the whole rigging thing seen as “rednecks complaining”, because even though Northern Democrats would appreciate southern votes, there’s still a regional divide, and if those seats are majority-black, then some might care even less due to racism.
 
“The We the People Party will turn our nation to SOCIALISM”
“Yeah but how? All but two of their members are in jail?”

That’s kinda the thing, Rummy kept a lot of radical groups around (and worked with all of them to a certain extent) because they can all anger his bases.

If you’re an “average joe” who sees “urban” riots on the television every day and hates the WTPers, when Rummy calls them evul socialists, you’ll agree with him. If you’re a conservative Christian and despise “godless heathens” in Libertarian communes and states, you’ll appreciate Rummy bashing them. If you’re a more socially moderate person who doesn’t like the opposition for whatever reason but is real scared of the CVs, Rummy talking about “Jesus freaks” will give you confidence that he’s not off the deep end. It’s harder to gain that hatred when the opposition can be a more moderate primary opponent or some Bol Weevil/Clintonite from Louisiana or some shit.

If anything, that’s how Rummy stayed around for long enough. Sure, he’ll sell you out to big businesses, but he’s not a fucking cult, people who wanna legalize most drugs, or (perceived) rioters. Also Democrats are fucking incompetent. At that point, you can leave the country (which could prove difficult for a variety of reasons) or stay with the devil you have.

That actually brings up another point brought up in the TL. In some midterm, Rummy straightup rigged elections in Southern/rural Democratic seats while letting ones in urban northern cities slide. This wasn’t just to divide the left, it was to make the whole rigging thing seen as “rednecks complaining”, because even though Northern Democrats would appreciate southern votes, there’s still a regional divide, and if those seats are majority-black, then some might care even less due to racism.


I think its likely when the dust clears from the civil war, the whole Decade of Tears will create a profound moral crisis within the American psyche.

Yes, Rummy was a tyrant whose mad whims drove him to attack his own fellow Republicans. Yes, he exploited an outdated electoral system and rigged elections.

But he wasn't some invincible demon who was unstoppable, as proven by his impeachment: he wouldn't have gotten as far as he did had their not been a desperate upper middle class eager and willing to vote for a man who would supposedly protect their interest.

This was a middle-class that saw little problem with Rummy tearing at the engines of prosperity, backing an outright genocidal regime in South Africa, and turning huge portions of the government into a cash machine for private business. This was a group of voters who didn't find it problematic that their history was blatantly being rewritten, the environment was being heavily contaminated, their constitution being torn apart under the banner of "true freedom", their civil liberties were being shredded.

Or, even if they were troubled by those things, they still considered Rummy to be at least better then the nutty Libertarians and "welfare bums" who want money for nothing.

And let's not forget that more then a few Democrats, driven by opportunism, eagerly sided with this process as well, destroying the legacy of their own party, and turning their backs on their own principles.

As they say, a people gets the leader they deserve.

While OTL Watergate made Americans question the roles of their leaders, the whole Decade of Tears will many Americans to question what they once held dear. The fact that a good number of Americans considered Rummy a better choice then the likes of Pete McCloskey, or even Ron Dellums will transform what Americans value.
 
I think its likely when the dust clears from the civil war, the whole Decade of Tears will create a profound moral crisis within the American psyche.

Yes, Rummy was a tyrant whose mad whims drove him to attack his own fellow Republicans. Yes, he exploited an outdated electoral system and rigged elections.

But he wasn't some invincible demon who was unstoppable, as proven by his impeachment: he wouldn't have gotten as far as he did had their not been a desperate upper middle class eager and willing to vote for a man who would supposedly protect their interest.

This was a middle-class that saw little problem with Rummy tearing at the engines of prosperity, backing an outright genocidal regime in South Africa, and turning huge portions of the government into a cash machine for private business. This was a group of voters who didn't find it problematic that their history was blatantly being rewritten, the environment was being heavily contaminated, their constitution being torn apart under the banner of "true freedom", their civil liberties were being shredded.

Or, even if they were troubled by those things, they still considered Rummy to be at least better then the nutty Libertarians and "welfare bums" who want money for nothing.

And let's not forget that more then a few Democrats, driven by opportunism, eagerly sided with this process as well, destroying the legacy of their own party, and turning their backs on their own principles.

As they say, a people gets the leader they deserve.

While OTL Watergate made Americans question the roles of their leaders, the whole Decade of Tears will many Americans to question what they once held dear. The fact that a good number of Americans considered Rummy a better choice then the likes of Pete McCloskey, or even Ron Dellums will transform what Americans value.

And through all that, they went from living in their suburban havens on the backs of others to living underneath a bridge eating rats over a tire fire.
 
And through all that, they went from living in their suburban havens on the backs of others to living underneath a bridge eating rats over a tire fire.

Or, if they were the lucky elite who avoided Rummy's wrath, having their ill-gotten gains swept away by the brutal civil war that erupted from the wreckage Rummy left behind.

I bet postwar, there will be a lot of morality plays about people who backed Rumsfeld, only for karma to bite them when the CVs come to power.

My idea involves a yuppie who was a member of one the corporations that Rummy supported. Despite being born to privilege, he has a viciously Victorian attitude toward the poor, thinking that their suffering is due to the "inherent moral weakness and laziness of the poor".

Then comes the CVs, who proceed to trash America. Suddenly, the yuppie, even if isn't thrown into a death camp, is now destitute and homeless due to wartime destruction, and must know rely on the "charity" he scorned others for having. Meeting with the very poor he once scorned, he learns his behavior was wrong.
 
the lessons they'd learn is that strict discipline, ideological unity and a state for and of(but not by, because they'd vote for conservatives/rumsfeld types) the workers is the answer. after all, the west europeans are paying danegeld to the russians and the USSR is rising...
Wait, you say post-Rumsfeld America is gonna be a "proletarian democracy", then you say that the proletariat WON'T have a say in government?:confused:
 
Given the likely political composition of post-CV america, odds are this yuppie would end up chopping timber in alaska.

Well, Alaska gained independence so..

But whether or not the yuppie ended up in trouble will depend on how prominent the business he worked.

If it was a prominent business involved in a particularly grotesque action, he might be in some trouble.

Or he could potentially slip through the cracks, and work in whatever menial job is available.

Wait, you say post-Rumsfeld America is gonna be a "proletarian democracy", then you say that the proletariat WON'T have a say in government?
You get the irony, yes.

Uh...

Despite unfettered capitalism being utterly discredited, I doubt any significant percentage of Americans will embrace single-party Marxism Leninism.
 
US culture is known for ah doing 180 degree shifts on ideological/political stuff. Why WOULDN'T we see sizeable numbers embracing that after the events of FLAG/Rumsfeldia?
 
US culture is known for ah doing 180 degree shifts on ideological/political stuff. Why WOULDN'T we see sizeable numbers embracing that after the events of FLAG/Rumsfeldia?

Because it's not worse than what came before. That makes it far too optimistic for this story.
 
US culture is known for ah doing 180 degree shifts on ideological/political stuff. Why WOULDN'T we see sizeable numbers embracing that after the events of FLAG/Rumsfeldia?

Because it's not worse than what came before. That makes it far too optimistic for this story.

Again, most Americans still believe in free elections. They are not going to throw out diverse political parties as a whole.
 
Again, most Americans still believe in free elections. They are not going to throw out diverse political parties as a whole.

Why not? Political diversity is what caused this whole mess to begin with. "The people must never be allowed to vote for a Rumsfeld ever again" would definitely have adherents. Honestly, most of the discussion here treats the story as nearing its end. Just do the Howard Zinn Reconstruction and we're finished. The way I see it, the bad times are just getting started, with the impending coup in Russia, schism in the Catholic church, Japan's heel turn, and Israel and South Africa tearing down the Middle East and Africa respectively. The global community won't hang together once the CV are dead and Rhyzkov is face-down in an alley somewhere - there's too much sacrifice necessary and too little trust to go around. The moment there's a downturn in Europe, every country for itself will reassert itself. Just look at OTL.

And the United States is going to be led by three men born in the 1910's who each bear more responsibility for the disintegration of American democracy than anyone not named Rumsfeld or Coe. Agnew, Wallace and Nixon are not men who can be trusted to heal a culture, much less one that just finished a civil war that dwarfs any OTL conflict. And even if they could, they're all living on borrowed time and probably should be dead already in light of the dramatically lower public health of TTL America. If the 80's were the Decade of Tears, the 90's will be the Decade of Silence - there's just nothing left.
 
I didn't necessarily say _one party_ I just said communist. No reason you couldn't have a setup like PRI Mexico with one dominant party and a few semilegit oppositions or OTL Iran where the parties are various flavors of the ruling ideology.
 
You get the irony, yes.
Regardless, disregarding the will of the people on the grounds of "we know what's good for them better than they do" was something Rumsfeldian politicians did.
The Ohio Secretary of State throws out 30% of Democratic ballots (which affects ten House races, tipping them to Republican candidates). The Secretary of State explains that his studies show that “30% of Democratic voters were completely misguided on the issue, so our action today will ensure that vote count reflects the true wishes of an informed and freedom dedicated citizenry.” Court challenges follow, but are stopped at the United States Supreme Court after the “McCloskey seven” incident.
Also, the fact that Rumsfeld lost the popular vote in both 1980 and 1984 explodes the idea that taking away the right to vote for the average citizen is necessary to prevent another Rummy. If anything, the old American electoral system didn't represent the will of the people enough, and that's what allowed the tragedy of Rumsfeldia to happen.
 
The american people OTL swallowed Bill Clinton-style neoliberalism, fox news or even Trump. Why do you think they _wouldn't_ be able to swallow the line that capitalism/"the old america" caused Rumsfeld. That meme has far fewer moving parts for people to have to digest than your idea would.
 
Regardless, disregarding the will of the people on the grounds of "we know what's good for them better than they do" was something Rumsfeldian politicians did.

And how better to prevent Rumsfeldians from repeating that than to forbid Rumsfeldism entirely? Forbid it, forbid anything that could plausibly metastasize into it. Forget stability, the great promise of dictatorship has always been that you or someone who thinks like you will always get your way. So an anti-Rumsfeld dictator would sound like a godsend to many.
 
And how better to prevent Rumsfeldians from repeating that than to forbid Rumsfeldism entirely? Forbid it, forbid anything that could plausibly metastasize into it. Forget stability, the great promise of dictatorship has always been that you or someone who thinks like you will always get your way. So an anti-Rumsfeld dictator would sound like a godsend to many.

Well...

Let us look at OTL Germany.

OTL Germany is a nation that has managed to bury Nazism without burying democracy.

That have hate speech laws, and they educated younger people about the dangers of authoritarianism.

TTL American children can easily get an education, and they can also ban political forces that overtly promote the principles of Rumsfeldism, without ending Democratic processes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top