DEMOCRATS ROUTINELY COMPLAIN that President Bush and his political team call them unpatriotic for criticizing Bush on the war in Iraq. Democratic senator John Kerry, a struggling presidential candidate, last week went one step further. Addressing the Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry claimed to know ahead of time how the Bush crowd would react to his speech. "I know what the Bush apologists will say to this--that it is unpatriotic to question, to criticize, and to call for change," Kerry said. "I believe it is the essence of patriotism to hold this nation to a higher standard." Yet there was no such charge from Bush or his allies--no doubt, to Kerry's consternation.

The claim that Democrats are targets of a political low blow by being labeled unpatriotic has become a Democratic refrain. It's been used by Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, and presidential candidates Dick Gephardt, Wesley Clark, and Howard Dean. Kennedy was upbraided by Republicans in September for claiming Bush had concocted the Iraq war for political gain. His response: "There's no question that this White House sees political advantage in the war. And you can see it in the way they attack the patriotism of those who question them."

But nobody called Kennedy or any other Democrat unpatriotic. Bush didn't. Senate Republicans didn't. House majority leader Tom DeLay denounced Kennedy, but didn't accuse him of a lack of patriotism. In this and every other case in which Democrats claim to have been smeared as unpatriotic, the facts don't bear them out. Bush has never used the words "Democrat" and "unpatriotic" in the same sentence or in nearby sentences. In fact, he's never uttered the word "unpatriotic" in public in any context.

Democrats said he insinuated they were unpatriotic during the congressional debate on a department of homeland security in 2002. But what Bush actually said in a speech was merely that "the Senate" was "more interested in special interests . . . and not interested in the security of the American people." And there was evidence to support the charge. Democrats controlled the Senate at the time, and they voted against Bush's version of the new department 11 times, precisely because it weakened the prerogatives of a Democratic special interest, labor unions.

There is, however, one political figure who's been accused time and again of being unpatriotic: President Bush. The accusers? Democrats. Graham said Bush's Iraq policy is "anti-patriotic at the core, because it's asking only one group of Americans, those soldiers in Iraq and their families, to pay the price of the occupation." Kerry was harsher. In a candidate debate last September, he said Bush "lives out a creed of greed for he and his friends. I'm tired of seeing chief executives be permitted to take their millions or billions to Bermuda and leave the average American here at home stuck with the tax bill. You know what I call that? Unpatriotic." Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton complained of Bush, "Real patriots don't put troops in harm's way on a flawed policy." And Dean has questioned the patriotism of Bush's attorney general, John Ashcroft.

But Democrats have convinced themselves they are victims. To shut off dissent from Bush's Iraq policy, they insist, the administration tars dissenters as unpatriotic. When the White House said Durbin had disclosed classified information in a Senate speech, he responded by claiming that anyone who questioned Bush's case for war would be unfairly attacked. "This White House is going to turn to you and attack you," he said. "They are going to question your patriotism." Democrats were incensed by a recent Republican TV ad that says "people are attacking the president for attacking the terrorists." That, said Clark, showed Bush is "trying to strip us of our patriotism."

Democrats are selectively sensitive about TV ads. They remained completely passive when the NAACP aired a commercial in 2000 that accused Bush of killing James Byrd "all over again"--Byrd had been murdered by racist thugs--for refusing to sign a new hate crimes bill. And today they blame Bush for failing to deliver on his promise to "change the tone" in Washington. Yes, the tone needs changing. But it won't change if Democrats keep complaining, in order to discredit Bush, that their patriotism is being questioned--and then also claiming that the president is unpatriotic. They are wrong on both counts.

The armed conflict in Iraq would be over in minutes if the fedayeen Saddam, the Ba'athist loyalists, and the jihadists from all over the world would only recognize the error of their ways, and lay down their arms. Since they show little inclination to conform to the clearly rational requests for peace, it is most regretfully necessary to continue to thump them soundly, and limit their capability to move about freely.

By their rebellious behavior, they have chosen the prison in which they live, confined to an ever-tightening perimeter with dwindling supplies and collapsing infrastructure. Other Iraqis are becoming informants, as it becomes more and more obvious that Saddam, or any of his successors, shall never again assume power. And the informants shall be the key to finally ripping open the last nest of termites that caused the internal destruction of the Iraq nation long before the coalition forces ever entered the country.

Certainly, the coalition forces have suffered casualties and there continues to be a steady stream of body bags finding their way back to their final rest. These casualties are not to be taken lightly. But consider the plight of the Iraqis themselves, families and communities that were torn apart almost off-handedly during the Saddam regime, and not a peep of protest all that time from the very people who wish to believe the presence of the coalition forces constitutes aggression. Aggression against what? A new and just way of extending freedom to people who have known precious little of that commodity for way too long? Ignorance, suspicion and unbridled hatred? Just what do the anti-war people want, anyway? Their aims seemingly are totally contradictory, first that the Bush Administration does far too little, then that far too much energy and treasury is being poured into Iraq.

Iraq is not Viet Nam, nor should it be allowed to become a similar situation. Viet Nam was pursued without clear objectives, or ever much thought as to how that nation would be governed after hostilities ceased. Such government as existed in South Viet Nam, an economically much more viable country than North Viet Nam under Ho Chi Minh, was systematically destroyed by lack of support and outright obstruction for years between 1962 and 1972, until there was little left to fight for. An attempt was made to revitalize the civil administration of South Viet Nam in 1973 and 1974, but the victim was by that time comatose.

Militarily, the US won the war over and over again, at fearful cost, in South Viet Nam. There was simply no reliable local administration to turn over the reins of power to.

This is what is being done right now in Iraq. No organized government now exists at a national level in that tormented land, though it is in the process of being born. The best hope is to create a stable federation from what are some quite disparate populations, in such a way that one faction or another cannot win so much superiority as to throw the others into permanent subservience.

We mean to win the peace. But first, the thugs must be rounded up, and so far they have not shown the least degree of compliance.

You tell 'em, Fred !! bttt for later ! ...

The claim that Democrats are targets of a political low blow by being labeled unpatriotic has become a Democratic refrain. It's been used by Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, and presidential candidates Dick Gephardt, Wesley Clark, and Howard Dean. Kennedy was upbraided by Republicans in September for claiming Bush had concocted the Iraq war for political gain. His response: "There's no question that this White House sees political advantage in the war. And you can see it in the way they attack the patriotism of those who question them."
But nobody called Kennedy or any other Democrat unpatriotic. Bush didn't. Senate Republicans didn't. House majority leader Tom DeLay denounced Kennedy, but didn't accuse him of a lack of patriotism. In this and every other case in which Democrats claim to have been smeared as unpatriotic, the facts don't bear them out. Bush has never used the words "Democrat" and "unpatriotic" in the same sentence or in nearby sentences. In fact, he's never uttered the word "unpatriotic" in public in any context.

Projection

Projection is the attempt to relieve anxiety by attributing ones failures and unacceptable thoughts to someone else. In the simplest form, others are blamed for our own problems. In more subtle cases, others are seen to have the unacceptable feelings that we sense in ourselves but cannot acknowledge. In both cases, intolerable feelings of worthlessness, shame or self-doubt are externalized, so that the seem to be coming from an outside source. We try to see ourselves as a victim of outside circumstances rather than than the author of our own problems.

Except, perhaps, among drunken men fighting in bars over perceived insults, Projection is almost never seen without an accompanying Rationalization. When I sense a failure within me, I feel a non-specific impulse to blame someone else. This is Projection. This impulse itself is not something I want to acknowledge to myself and others, so I need a legitimate-sounding excuse to justify it. This is Rationalization. The Projection impulse can lead to a wide range of possible Rationalizations, depending on the circumstances and the information available to me. Once I have settled upon a Rationalization, I can then claim that this excuse is the sole motivation for my opinion and actions.

Projection is frequently accompanied by a display of Anger. Anger is a tool we use to draw our attention away from our own internal state and to obtain a reaction from others. It is a pyrotechnic display intended to create a diversion and forcefully detach our consciousness from the private thoughts that were distressing us. When we express our anger to others, it demands their attention and reaction, which provides further distraction from our original feelings.

Examples

When I fail a test at school, I blame my teacher, saying that she worded the questions poorly.
A woman, denying to herself that she has sexual feelings about a co-worker, accuses him of sexual harassment. When the complaint is investigated by management and is found to have no basis, the woman quits her job and files a bias complaint with government authorities. When that action fails, the woman insists that the government, the employer and the co-worker are all corrupt. She develops bizarre theories to explain how all of them are controlled by a secret organization bent on world domination.
To cover up her own anxiety, an enraged customer at a car rental agency complains about every step in the rental process. See Case Study #1.

Subtypes

Anger -- The directing of hostility against a person or object.
Blame Shifting - Blaming others for our own problems.
In this simplest case of projection, the responsibility for ones own problems or failures is shifted to someone else, usually with a display of exaggerated anger. If I fail a test at school, it must be the teacher's fault for wording the questions poorly. The particular excuse I use is a Rationalization, but the underlying urge to blame the other party is a Projection. If a relationship fails, and I cannot accept my own responsibility, then the other party must be the culprit. Once I have decided that this is the case, then I look around me to find a Rationalization to support it. (Most relationships are complex enough that an accusation can usually be found.)
We see Blame Shifting in all manner of public transactions, from the driver who curses the policeman for giving him a traffic ticket, to the politician who blames the press for his loss in an election. ("You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore.") Almost always there is anger accompanying the accusation, because anger helps draw attention away from oneself. Instead of being angry at myself for my failures, I turn my frustration outward where I can express it safely.
Counterattack - Distracting attention from ones own flaws or imminent failure by attacking the perceived flaws of others. (Also define preemptive counterattack.)
Reflective Attribution -
Projective Identification -

Differential Definitions

Although Projection is usually accompanied by Rationalization, they are two separate impulses. Projection is the raw urge to blame someone else, while Rationalization is the later intellectual attempt to make that urge seem acceptable. When I fail a test at school, I feel the non-specific impulse to blame someone else (Projection). It may take me a few moments to come up with a Rationalization for that urge -- that the questions on the test were poorly worded. Except, perhaps, among drunken men fighting in bars, Projection is almost never seen in isolation. It need the air of legitimacy that Rationalization provides.

Expression in Personality

Projection is the preferred defense mechanism of the Paranoid, who tend to see outside threats in lieu of their own shortcomings.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.