The Making of a Meme

Posted on February 18th, 2007 by April.
Categories: Congress, Democracy, Democratic, Media, Politics, Republican, War.

Wow!  Frustrating as it is to watch, I have to admire the Republican party for their ability to frame the discussion to their strategic advantage.  The players quickly adapting new talking points, making sure the message is delivered, discussed, and repeated.

They create an echo chamber.  Suddenly, this new talking point permeates the media, drawing focus away from other issues, limiting the possibilities of discourse, and shaping public perception so as to allow certain interpretations and rule out others.

Democrats, often having differing views, are at a disadvantage.  They are forced to address the Republican talking point typically from a defensive position.  The echo chamber combined with continued framing of the discussion, has produced a meme - a unit of cultural information.

Before they have the opportunity to vet their ideas in the public forum, Democrats must shift focus away from the meme, discredit the meme, or defend their position before they’ve said what that position is - because the meme WAS perceived as their position.

Even then, Democrats don’t try, or are unable, to modify the framing.

For example, the Republicans have been very successful in framing the debate over estate taxes.  Very few Americans will have a taxable estate, but the Republican use of death taxes as a substitution for estate taxes has been very effective.  Everyone dies… no one likes taxes.

Where is this going?

Well in the last few days a new phrase has entered the debate surrounding the Iraq War.  Maybe you’ve heard it already… "slow-bleed."

The Democrats "slow-bleed plan" has been discussed in print media, blogs, in Congress, by Tony Snow, and made the rounds Sunday TV’s talking head shows.

Slow-bleed is rapidly becoming a meme.

All bullshit.  There is no slow bleed plan, never has been.  The phrase did not originate with the Democrats, although the meme suggests otherwise.

On February 14, The Politico published a piece by John Bresnahan that was critical of the Democrats’ strategy in dealing with the administration on Iraq.  He coined the phrase "slow-bleed" as a way to describe their plan.

That same day, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Mike Duncan, issued a letter that cited Bresnahan’s article in falsely claiming that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. John Murtha had referred to the Democrats’ strategy  as  "their ’slow-bleed’ plan":

"We’ve known all along that they want to cut and run before the job is done. But they’ve been afraid to confront President Bush directly. Today, Democrat [sic] Rep. John Murtha let slip what he and Nancy Pelosi really intend to do, and it is genuinely frightening."

"They call it their ’slow-bleed’ plan."

Continuing later that same day, conservative bloggers pick up the ball.  Michelle Malkin (and her posse), never one to let facts get in the way of a good story to whip her readers into a frothy mob posted:

"What a disgrace. It seems that Democrats like Murtha fear the surge in Iraq just as much as Mookie al-Sadr does, and for the same reason: It might work. And like Mookie, the Democrats will engage in sneak attacks designed to destroy the country’s warfighting capability. Words fail me in expressing my outrage at this Murtha-Pelosi strategy. It’s the end game for people whose care for the troops only extends to having enough troops to chauffeur them around the country. Their slow bleed strategy means American defeat if it succeeds, and they know it. That’s the whole point of it."

The next day, The Washington Post joined in along with MSNBC.

Today, slow-bleed was discussed on every "news" channel… in a few more days we’ll have a hard time remembering a time without the slow-bleed plan.

Now here’s the $64,000 question.  Will the public join the memeplex or are Americans waking up to see slow-bleed as just a political word game?

What is the Democrats’ strategy?

If the bits and pieces that have "leaked" are true, the strategy sounds more like sound policy.

As chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Rep. Murtha has control of the Pentagon’s checkbook.  He controls the what, where, and when the DoD can spend the funds appropriated by congress.

First, the plan does NOT cut funding or resources to any deployed troops.  In fact, the plan will require MORE money be spent on the troops.

In February, congress will send the President the DoD appropriations bill to continue funding the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It is believed that written into the bill will be very specific requirements the President and DoD must adhere or funding will be suspended.

  • While troops are deployed in combat, The President is required to send a status report to congress every 60 days.  President Bush has refused to comply, under this new spending bill if he wants money, Congress gets their report.
  • Oversight.  For 5 1/2 years there has been no (or very little) oversight on how the funds appropriated for Iraq and Afghanistan have been spent.  That will change.  In the last few days, detail of the first GOA audit of DoD spending has begun to come out.  It does not look good.
  • Troops may not be deployed until they meet a full combat readiness status.  We will no longer send troops into combat without water, armor, munitions, vehicles, etc.

To highlight that last item, the surge troops are being deployed without body-armor, vehicle armor, and other resources required to complete the mission they’ve been tasked.

Pace: Not enough equipment for escalation.

“U.S. Marine Gen. Peter Pace admitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday equipment will be a problem when U.S. forces in Iraq are increased. … Pace said the military has about 41,000 armored vehicles in Iraq — fewer than will be needed ‘to cover all of the troops that are deploying.’ Pace said it will be July before enough equipment is in place.”

 

Party Before Country

Deborah Pryce (R-OH), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI),
Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), and Adam Putnam (R-FL)

The above members of Congress have used the slow-bleed meme to criticize Democrats during the Iraq debate.  All of them also voted NOT to fund a 2003 amendment that would have increased health care funding for troops and their familes, provide clean water to troop deployed in Iraq, and replace war damaged military equipment because shortages were becoming increasingly problematic.

Congressional Record for the 108th session
Item #28, Page H9495 - PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3289

"…We want to do something about the fact that 80 percent of American troops in Iraq right now are drinking putrid water, getting dysentary…"

"…You will also be preventing us from providing the money that the Army and the other services asked for to refurbish equipment which was worn out or used up in Iraq…"

- Rep. Obey (D-WI)

Note how they all use the same vocal inflections too.  They don’t really care about the troops… just numbers on paper… someone else’s blood.

[t/h thinkprogress.org]

      Wikipedia: Echo chamber (as a metaphor)
      Wikipedia: Framing (communication theory)
      Wikipedia: Meme
      Wikipedia: Memeplex
      Wikipedia: U.S. House Committee on Appropriations

0 comments.