Yeah, I guess the Surge is playing tonight...?
As I read and listen to the news... Here's something I've been thinking about lately.
The Bush administration seems to care less about policies than names. As long as they have a good name for whatever they want to do, they don't seem to worry too much about the underlying policy, planning, or logistics required. (Examples: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Clear Skies Initiative, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Modernization Act.) Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves, though my theory is that they're either simply better at political marketing than governing or there's some fundamental confusion which substitutes one for the other. A more sinister possibility is that actual policy goals aren't publicly discussed.
The not-quite-yet-proposed new Iraq policy has so far been referred to as... "The Surge." The president is considering a surge, future plans in Iraq may consist of a surge of troops, troop levels may be increased to allow for a surge, etc. You know, you've heard it too.
Here's what strikes me about the surge: It's not even a good name.
It sounds like a bad high school garage band.
It sounds like an American pro soccer team.
Catchy, sure, maybe a bit. But that's mostly from simplicity, as it's basically one word. Descriptive? Informative? Hardly at all. Usual incorporation of goals or an obvious good is plainly missing. So what does this mean? Technically, as it hasn't been announced by the president, it may be that the official policy name hasn't been put forward. (This AEI press release gives a model for renaming -- or rebranding -- with "Choosing Victory" as a title and "surge" in the text.) But since just "surge" has been floating around for so long, I think it's going to stick as the policy referent, and the administration should realize this too.
I'd like to think that the poor name choice means that more consideration went into exactly what's going to be done, how it's going to be handled, where the additional troops will come from. But to be as cynical as usual, I'd say it's more likely that this is a sign of how things will be with what I'll call "The Bush White House: The Lame Duck Years."
They've just stopped trying.
The Bush administration seems to care less about policies than names. As long as they have a good name for whatever they want to do, they don't seem to worry too much about the underlying policy, planning, or logistics required. (Examples: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Clear Skies Initiative, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Modernization Act.) Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves, though my theory is that they're either simply better at political marketing than governing or there's some fundamental confusion which substitutes one for the other. A more sinister possibility is that actual policy goals aren't publicly discussed.
The not-quite-yet-proposed new Iraq policy has so far been referred to as... "The Surge." The president is considering a surge, future plans in Iraq may consist of a surge of troops, troop levels may be increased to allow for a surge, etc. You know, you've heard it too.
Here's what strikes me about the surge: It's not even a good name.
It sounds like a bad high school garage band.
It sounds like an American pro soccer team.
Catchy, sure, maybe a bit. But that's mostly from simplicity, as it's basically one word. Descriptive? Informative? Hardly at all. Usual incorporation of goals or an obvious good is plainly missing. So what does this mean? Technically, as it hasn't been announced by the president, it may be that the official policy name hasn't been put forward. (This AEI press release gives a model for renaming -- or rebranding -- with "Choosing Victory" as a title and "surge" in the text.) But since just "surge" has been floating around for so long, I think it's going to stick as the policy referent, and the administration should realize this too.
I'd like to think that the poor name choice means that more consideration went into exactly what's going to be done, how it's going to be handled, where the additional troops will come from. But to be as cynical as usual, I'd say it's more likely that this is a sign of how things will be with what I'll call "The Bush White House: The Lame Duck Years."
They've just stopped trying.
Labels: politics
posted by blerg3000 at 9:37 AM
5 Comments:
Maybe they are just want to cut costs by taking advantage of existing marketing materials?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Surge_logo.png
Compare and contrast with the best double entendre the 21st century has yet produced: Operation Enduring Freedom.
Man, I love getting feedback.
To Moth: Awesome. Do you think they'll later use Coke as a policy initiative, or would somebody realize how bad an idea that is?
To I: Shouldn't we give points for being half right? "Enduring" was perfectly accurate.
:) How about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Slurm_Splat_Logo.svg ?
No, I think they're entirely correct. As in, "Why was my neighbor's home destroyed shortly after I lost my leg in a homemade explosion? ...Oh, that's right. I'm Enduring Freedom."
Post a Comment
<< Home