I read Boot's column in the LA Times, the gist of which says that the President's plan, flawed as it is, is the best on the table and therefore it behooves us to give it a chance, and I thought 'well, this is a clever way to support nothing while looking like you're supporting something'. What I mean is that Boot and his ilk are saying in so many words that the Bush plan may be a doomed piece of nonsense but that the only thing worse than the nonsensical doomedness of it would be to admit that such is the case: what they're saying is that shallow theatrics is the only thing of substance to be hoped for now and that there is nothing more substantial, within that superficial context, than the good ol' American can do gumption based theatre of gosh darn it not giving up without a fight.
Now, I'm not going to necessarily disagree with that idea; after all, the world constantly verges on the farcical, the ludicrous, and the above does not to me seem so remarkable in its divergence from reason to warrant concern - indeed, it may be quite a rational response given prevailing circumstances. But the opinion or posture does regardless beg one certain question which proponents of it refuse to answer: even an illusion, to be of practical use, needs basing on something one is willing or capable of believing is true, regardless of verity of said verity and accordingly the truth asking for forgiveness here is that doing something is at least if nothing else better than doing nothing - but...
Why should I believe that, even allowing for the provisional nature of the belief? Boot and his cohorts ascribe to it with a felicity that is almost contemptuous, as if they were being asked to explain why the sun comes up in the morning; and to their credit, if credit is due, I suppose the theatrics of a show of force casts them in this role and they are playing it, professional hacks that they are, with conviction - but none of that leaves me any closer to an answer. There is absolutely no reason to be believe that doing something in this case is better than doing nothing, even if one accepts their language and definitions, which I don't - it is after all very difficult to do nothing - ; in fact it is possible and reasonable to argue that their something is likely to do more harm, as in precipitating the general coming apart of things, opening precipitously the door to the fools that rush in, that their something may indeed do more harm than their nothing.
Maybe though that is what they want. The closer one examines the spectacle the closer one comes to embracing the cynicism of it all, be it theirs or your own. Hamlet was quite happy to drink the wine proffered to him by a woman, dupe though she was, who he knew he couldn't or shouldn't trust. Now, was that bad writing by Shakespeare - or the cynical affirmation of a truth?
