TIME Using Republican Catchphrase, Again
The conservative media strikes again, with Time's new article, "Barack Obama's New World Order"
The article is basic stuff, about how different Obama's approach to foreign policy is from that of GWB. Ya think?
But the use of "New World Order" is bound to make the wingers apoplectic. It is one of their favorite catchphrases, and goes right along with Bachmann's campaign against a non-existent plan for an international currency. You know, Democrats want to end American sovereignty and participate in a One-World government. Don't underestimate how many people believe this idea in some form or other.
I refuse to believe TIME is unaware of how loaded the phrase "New World Order" is for a lot of Americans. Just google "New World Order" and "NWO" to see the far-flung advance of this particularly virulent strain of right-wing lunacy.
After Bachmann's call for "Revolution" and for people (i.e., Republicans) to be "Armed and Dangerous" it's a little disheartening to see Time shoveling some raw meat into wolf den.
The article is basic stuff, about how different Obama's approach to foreign policy is from that of GWB. Ya think?
But the use of "New World Order" is bound to make the wingers apoplectic. It is one of their favorite catchphrases, and goes right along with Bachmann's campaign against a non-existent plan for an international currency. You know, Democrats want to end American sovereignty and participate in a One-World government. Don't underestimate how many people believe this idea in some form or other.
I refuse to believe TIME is unaware of how loaded the phrase "New World Order" is for a lot of Americans. Just google "New World Order" and "NWO" to see the far-flung advance of this particularly virulent strain of right-wing lunacy.
After Bachmann's call for "Revolution" and for people (i.e., Republicans) to be "Armed and Dangerous" it's a little disheartening to see Time shoveling some raw meat into wolf den.
Advertisement
Seems to me I heard New World Order as a Bush thing around 2000-2001. Maybe in connection with PNAC?
"'This is a blueprint for US world domination -- a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.'" -- Neil MacKay re PNAC circa 2002 http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
Don't protest too much...
April 3, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I was talking specifically about the phrase "New World Order."
Clearly, much of the world thought, under Bush, that the US wanted to "control the world," and justifiably so, after the cooked evidence to justify the preemptive destruction of Iraq.
Now, though, it's the wingers who think Obama wants to sell us out to the rest of the world and become just a PART of the NWO, as they call it, instead of, you know, taking over the world ourselves. (Something they were apparently OK with.)
April 4, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get the significance of capitalization there. The left used the phrase against the right in 2000-2004 or so, and you now point out that the right is using it against the left.
I think the valid question is: Which usage is more grounded in fact and honest theory than the other?
April 4, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
How dare they...
How dare NY Times write today that Europe gave few troops to Obama, in direct contradiction to his press conference.
How dare anyone have an opinion of their own?
April 4, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time helped Obama get elected. Give them a break.
April 4, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink