Yesterday a Kossack was joking about sending Jenna Bush to Iraq and immediately the joke was carried forward into the notion of comfort women. A little while back a Kossack described the president’s wife in passing as frigid, and today I noticed a reference to “Bitch Barbara Bush.” I wish they wouldn’t do that. I wish we wouldn’t do that.
Why do we give away the store like this?
We complain about the loss of comity in politics and we accuse the freerepublic crowd of pure-dee ad hominem hydrophobia. We’re outraged when they launch personal attacks on Hillary Clinton. We were outraged when they made belittling remarks about the growing Chelsea. So why is it OK for us, the progressive bloggers, to launch these vicious little zingers?
After the whole pie business, regardless of which side one was on, I thought it might have raised consciousness all around, but this is apparently not the case. So you strongly disagree with the policies of the Bush administration, so that smirk drives you batty — how does this make Laura Bush frigid? So Jenna’s an airhead. How does that make it ok to talk about pimping her out on the battlefield? Jenna is no more involved in politics than my cats. Having read Al Franken, I’m as taken aback as anybody by some aspects of Barbara Bush’s personality, but how does it help the Democratic cause to call her names?
And yes, Ann Coulter says terrifying and irresponsible things, and she is a political player, but instead of rebutting her (perhaps not possible because she’s so off-the-wall) or ignoring her more irrational stuff, I see so-called progressive males sexually assaulting her with words over and over again.
Liberal bloggers regularly report back from their tours of such places as freerepublic with incendiary excerpts of posts from “over there”. May I ask what is the point of giving the freepers fuel for their own reconnoiters? When people post these offhand insults, do they never think beyond their own corner of the bar?
I love and reward quality snark as much as the next person, but I wish we could limit our targets to the people actually implementing the policies we hate so much, and leave the non-participants alone. Surely we can disrespect the participants as snidely and cleverly as we want, but find a way to do so without the trashing of the family members, sexually or otherwise.
Sadly, I don’t have the courage to post this on dailyKos, even though that’s where I’ve witnessed this sort of thing taking place, because I don’t want to be piled on. I’ve already had that experience in real life. But this isn’t just a rant about sexism; it’s about grace in debate, the sort of thing that garners respect from one’s opponents.
‘nother reason I’m over here. The epidemic of misogynistic language used to describe women. They’re bitches, whores and skanks. We had a discussion on dkos about the word c–t. I personally hate that word and can never think of a time when I would use it. People jumped all over me about it. Women too. They said “I love that word…you need to reclaim it!”
I just got tired of the women hating language. Even in progressive circles it is difficult to garner much serious respect.
I agree about the misogyny. And I don’t want the discussion to get penned up in the matter of sexism, important as that is. I’m hoping that if we repeat the message enough, it will be recognized that debasing the dialogue with sexist insults just doesn’t work. Or, to put it in terms this ethically-challenged administration would understand, it doesn’t poll well.
SecondNature, when they talked about “reclaiming” the word, were they referring to the use of the word as an epithet (as some women have reclaimed “bitch” to connote female strength and power) or to the use of the word to refer to female anatomy? Just curious.
Hi, sorry for the delay. They were arguing that even when it was used as an epithet we shouldn’t take it that way because it should be an empowering word that we shouldn’t take offense at. They likened it to calling someone a dick.
No worries for the delay (she said, replying four hours later). Thanks for the response!
I don’t get that line of thinking at all. The idea that the word should be reclaimed as a value-neutral colloquialism for female genitalia, okay — I can’t quite bring myself to use it that way, but I understand and respect the POV of women who do. But the argument that it’s “empowering” to insult someone by likening them to female genitalia — nope, just don’t get it.
to me kos is allowing this to be radical as possible to make his sight grow…see there are ppl out there that are good at doing things like that and need to be slapped till the snot comes of ther nose [behind the wood shed, so to speak]..but no one is doing it, which disturbes me to no end..I think kos is cutting his nose off to spite his face, if you ask me.
I go there and see it too..I am not a prude by far and I have had to deal with this feces for way toooooo long in my lifetime..
I am embarresed for them…trully I am.. they just do not know what harm they are doing to themselves in the process.
There’s plenty of more effective material. As for “Babs”…
Her Beautiful Mind
dubya is definitely his mother’s son.
I’m taken aback by all aspects of her politics.
the day that was said by her I was working an dmissed it, but the time I saw it reported, I sent out my own emails to that statement. God how I was angry for that one she made. And she went further stating that seh let poppy watch what tv he needed so that his mind was disturbed too. She also went on to say that she read to him that which she want to read to him…Then is when I got the clue that she was the rooster that ruled the house. so very sad…
Is there a link to the mind thing of what she is like and doing in her home and raising kids, etc. I certainly would love the read…thanks
Harsh truths:
Its not as simple as ‘Dem’s good, Rep’s bad’.
Maybe ‘Dem Policies good, Rep Policies bad’.
But as far as supporters? Dems have idiotic supporters just as ignorant and vitriolic as Reps. Maybe fewer, but they’re just as vocal.
The see the politics of Coulter and Cheney, and want tit-for-tat. They too really think “the ends justify the means”. I think they’re mad.
But we’re not going to win by “purifying” ourselves and expunging them from the party. It’d be wise for us to at least separate them out like the Rep’s do tho. Our own little faction of hateful bomb-throwers to match theirs.
But for heavens sakes, don’t let that be the public face of the Dem party.
That’s why I think all efforts to “clean up” dKos are doomed to fail. They don’t acknowledge the existance of this group of Democratic ‘haters’. They certainly don’t seem to understand it can’t be our public voice of persuasion. Its too inward-looking of an attitude. It fires up the base, but alienates anyone not already on-board. Its appeal is to angry-haters, not problem solvers.
Angry haters start revolutions. They don’t institute peace.
We could use a little ‘revolution’, a little domestic ‘regime change’ away from this administration’s dangerous policies.
But we’re never going to get 51% of the vote if that level of hate and anger is all we bring to the table.
We need a statesman-like constructive voice for the party, too. That’s the part I know that I want to be part of.
As much I despise Barbara and Laura Bush for their contributing to the evil in this country, they are not the sum of their private parts or their physical abilities to make love.
The Beltway heroine worship of Laura Bush at the WH Correspondents’ Dinner; the goddess worship of Barbara Bush during one of the Repub Convention panels as wife of an imperial president and the mother of a sitting imperial president (which DISTURBED some of the Repub women attendees). Barbara Bush’s long ago diss of Geraldine Ferraro (the ‘rhymes with bitch’ episode). What they say and do and what they don’t say and do. They make Pat Nixon look like a saint.
I can well understand some of the invective flung over the fence playing political war. However, I definitely see your point when things really go down to the level of the drain pipe.
Unfortunately, Barbara has the rep of running both husband and son. I think that it was Gore Vidal who said that Barbara was indeed the one to look out for in that family.
the front pagers have spoken. If you object you are a radical extremist women’s studies something or other.
I know you don’t want this to turn into a discussion of feminism, but it is all a part of the same problem.
The men and some of the women at dkos are just so manly, you can’t deny them their female body part insults. Maybe some of us wouldn’t mind the word cunt so much if we hadn’t forgotten what to do with ours. LOL
PS… and on a serious note, I have never bought into the idea that you could take back a slur. I don’t allow young african american people to use the word Ni**er around me without letting them know I don’t want to hear it under any circumstances.
I’m not so hot on the ‘reclaiming’ of slurs and racial epithets either. It’s a nice thought, and it probably works well in theory or with people who give conscious thought to what they are saying and in what context, and have a maturity level to deal with it, but it doesn’t always seem to work out like that. I’ve seen more of the “N” word used on different liberal blogs than I have anywhere else, sometimes to make a point, other times to highlight the mistreatment of an entirely different ethnic group, but I’m afraid also that no amount of reclaiming will make me like (or use) the word.
Mostly the practice seems (to me) to just put taboo-ish words back out into mainstream circulation, to be used by reclaimers and blamers alike, with the latter’s excuse being… “but so and so does it, so what’s wrong when I do?” when they are, of course, using the words in very different ways.
This is a tough one for me. I use “queer” pretty freely, to describe myself as well as the glbt community generally. I can’t say it has any deeply negative connotations for me personally, but I suspect that’s largely because of my age: I came out in the early nineties, during the era of ACT UP and Queer Nation, which gave the word a different spin for me. On the other hand, I am sympathetic to those who had different experiences, and I try not to use it around those who might object.
This whole subject is kind of intriguing for me — the conjunction of language and power and community. I don’t think twice when I hear a glbt person use “dyke,” and I don’t object to it coming from a straight person whose support I feel assured of. But from a stranger, it puts my back up, and from a hostile stranger, it enrages me. Not sure what my point is here, other than that this is a very complicated area, IMO.
It’s definitely very complicated. And I think probably age has something to do with it as well. My daughter is 26 and is way more comfortable using a variety of words (but not around me, lol) than I am.
I think use of various words that are accepted use by those within “communities”, but not by those outside of it make for a very confusing time for some people. I don’t think that is fixable, though… some people are just going to have to be confused, and others will just have to keep letting them know when they are out of line. Me, I am not gay, so I just use gay as I’ve not so far found a need to use anything else. My friends also call each other dyke and so on, but I would feel really out of place doing so.
Queer, fag, faggot (and now gay) have been used as insults in schoolyards for as long as I can remember… mostly by kids who have little idea of the meaning. I am not sure that reclaiming of those words will help take the sting out of them for the people they are directed towards, but if it does, especially for young people, then it’ll be a good thing.
Maybe I’m just old. According to my daughter, if you drop the “er” from the ending of the N word, and replace that with “a”, it turns into a different word with a different meaning entirely, although with almost the same sound. This is what some young Black kids/adults call each other… but those with other ears, not hearing the difference and trying to join in the fun can get themselves in a whole heap of trouble. Sigh.
You bring up an interesting point. There are words that gltb use in our groups of friends of the same orientation, that coming from strangers means or seems to mean something totally different.
Many of the names younger lesbians and gays seem to find all right, still have an edge to them for me. So many years. . .during the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s. . .these names were used with such vileness and such hatred that it was not something I have found easy to get comfortable with. I have gotten much better with it in the past 10 years, but there is still that instinctive shift to “hyper vigilance” that comes whooshing in on the wings of such words.
I still seldom use them myself, but I am not the word police and if younger people feel all right with that, then it is not for me to put a damper on them. As with the “c” word to describe women, and many of the other gender words, I really don’t like to participate in their use. But it really is WHO is using them, the intent with which they are used, and the emotional energy behind them.
Gee, I sound like an older generation relic. . .hmmmm
Shirl, I haven’t been around Boo Trib that long, but I’ve already read enough of your work to say that “relic” is hardly a word I’d use to describe you!
The generational differences here are probably key, as you say. I grew up in a very conservative midwestern town of about 500 people — it was decidedly not a good place to be anything other than heterosexual, and that sucked hard. I got the hell out as soon as I could, have never gone back, and while I have no major trauma to complain of I’m certainly not unaffected by the values that surrounded me there. That said, I recognize that I am remarkably lucky in that getting out was an option, that there were other places to go that were safe. I also recognize that I owe that to countless people who came before me and took incredible risks just to live with dignity and integrity. The only reason I’m able to use a word like “queer” as comfortably as I do is because of those brave people, whether their bravery entailed being on the front lines at Stonewall or simply living quiet lives while being true to who they were. So thank you, Shirl, and thanks to all the others who made that possible for me.
(I’ve gone rather off topic here, but I got worked up and that felt like it needed to be said.)
Thanks so much Jennifer.
Those were some rough and difficult times. . .in some places today they are rough and difficult times. I wish I had done more, or felt I was able to do more on the front lines. I was always a live and let live person, just as I am now, The only note worthy thing I ever did was stand up for ones who were being mistreated when I could, and was one of 4 people who was instrumental in bringing MCC to conservative Salt Lake City in the midst of the Mormons. Whether one was particularly religious or not, it was a very nice break from having all social interactions take place in the bars.
But I am ready to stand on the front lines now, if needs be, so count me in on that one.
I will never accept the body part insults. I reject sexism as funny in any way. I hate the use of ethnic slurs.
But for some reason hearing gay and lesbian friends use words like Queen, dyke, queer etc… doesn’t bother me in the same way. I really have no idea why.
Faggot. I really hate the word faggot and I don’t like it when I hear gay men use it.
That’s really interesting, Teresa, because I have almost the exact same reaction, and I’m not sure why, either.
The above comment was intended to respond to both of your points, not just the one I actually replied to.
Understood.
I’m not opposed to rehabilitating the word “cunt,” but it has to be for the purpose of empowering women, not to continue increasing site traffic on women’s backs. Also, it has to be women claiming it, not men.
Thanks for posting this. It’s a good reminder that emotion given free reign over respect and civility just results in more negative emotion — never the positive change we hope to see.
I also have to say that I find it faintly ironic that some who dismiss emotion as a legitimate consideration when it comes to policy spend so much of their time in full emotional mode when discussing their own views.
I still think we need snark and put-down classes. Beyond being denigrating to all women (and others, depending on what term is used), most of the stuff is just plain unimaginative and unproductive.
Look at the Ann Coulter Time magazine cover thing… on the one side you have the same old boring rants… skank, whore, man trap, man coulter, etc, etc… that really do nothing to the woman, because it just puts the back up of people who either don’t know who she is, or don’t really care or mostly don’t like her but don’t know what all the fuss is about.
Then you have something like David Ehrenstein’s… “Edwina Scissorfeet!” that puts her in an immediately ridiculous light and causes people (some) to laugh with you at her, as opposed to getting angry with you for insulting her.
A little well placed, but not especially nasty, humour at their expense goes a long way towards defanging some of them, I believe.
I hurl insults at Ms. Coulter because she’s a right wingnut. That’s reason enough.
I wrote something snarky about her which upset some in the Time slugfest. That certainly was a mini pie fight, wasn’t it?
The scissorfeet photoshop was technically excellent, and original, as well as hilarious. Which puts it in a whole different class from “Ann Coulter is a c*t.”
I am not arguing against political humor, and well-done snark is valuable because it helps make a point in the way three earnest paragraphs often fail to do. I subscribe to the Funny Times and practically worship Tom Toles.
It just seems to me that there are some individuals who think posting “Ann Coulter is a c
*t” is clver, and I don’t really know what to do about them.
n/t
Well, there are two things that we have to make a distinction between here. Asking in public why, if Bush’s support for the war is so strong (and his daughters’ support for his policies), Jenna and not-Jenna aren’t over there fighting is a perfectly legitimate question and rhetorical device. It displays the hypocrisy of the Republican hawks on a grand scale – by pointing at their leader and showing how hawkish he is.
That said, levelling personal insults at these people is obviously wrong. No matter how horrible and evil they are – from Lynne Cheney on down – we need to remember that they’re people and play fair. Take a page from Dean’s playbook – insult them by calling attention to their “strengths” and their real agenda. Don’t sink to their level and start name-calling.
Take a page from Dean’s playbook – insult them by calling attention to their “strengths” and their real agenda.
Insult them by telling the truth. They really hate it.
That works too, though is much harder for many Democratic politicians to pull off. As, in a lot of cases, the truth winds up being “They did this bad stuff and I sat on my hands whistling a merry tune.”
This turns my stomach. What is funny about the military sexual enslavement of hundreds of thousands of women? What is humorous about a system that recruited young girls under false pretenses into forced prostitution?
I’m a Korea specialist. 80% of Japan’s military sexual slaves were Korean. It was a hideous and massive violation of human rights founded not only on a twisted version of Confucian patriarchy but also on a profound racism. Parallels can be drawn between Japan’s WWII system of “comfort women” and current institutions of U.S. military camptown sex industries in South Korea. It’s racist and sexist and classist and indefensibly ugly.
I want a link, so I can direct my rant at the source. Who joked about comfort women yesterday?
After reading your post, I went over to dKos and hunted around, but I don’t remember whose diary it was. I’ve lost it and can’t provide a link, sorry.
I thought this was going to be a “she so fat” thread and had my favorite “She so fat she all standing on the street corner and a cop came over and told her to “Break it up!”
Oh well.
I love yo mama riffs! And what’s interesting to me is their ritual component; they’re like formal insult-joke contests, like what the Inuit do. Two people compete to see who can out-insult the other, with an audience to judge. Yo Mama jokes represent a containment of hostility, a structured way to do battle without actually hurting anybody.
I always adored that Eddy Murphy example in Nutty Professor — “Yo’ Mama, she so fat, I roll over twice and I’m still on top of her…”
We need to revitalize the concept of shame.
What makes us think we are civilized beings?
I cringe when trying to figure out what george (or a soldier) means when he says he wants to ‘fuck Saddam,’ it’s more violent than sexual.
The misogyny of our world is just begging for the Lysistrata solution.
Respect and grace are soon becoming things of the past. Thanks for posting this – we needed it.
I think he means fucking Guckert was good, but fucking Saddam would be even better.
I appreciate your over-all point, but calling Barbara Bush a bitch is not sexist. It’s a simple statement of fact. Her devil’s spawn is dragging us over a cliff, and she is largely responsible. This is the woman Nixon admired because she “really knew how to hate.” She was known as the “meanest woman in Washington.” I only wish her machinations weren’t relevant to our current catastrophe. I wish to God, she’d take her “beautiful mind” and devote it to something other than political orchestration, but that is, sadly, not the case.
As for Laura Bush, I think to call her “frigid” is out of bounds, and not something any Kossack would know. I do, however, think she sleeps on a heated rock and eats live mice. In other words, see a resemblance? I do.
As far as Ann Coulter goes, she has put the issue of her sexual attractiveness front and center in the debate. As long as she keeps showcasing her skeletal frame in micro-minis and provocatively flipping her lovely blond tresses, to sell her deranged ideas and mangled view of the Constitution, she cannot claim the moral high ground when men say they find her repellent, rather than enticing. If you use sex to sell, you can’t get angry when people reject both the product and the pitch.
By and large, I agree with you that pot-shots at Jenna are unfair, but I would have a far bigger problem with it, if the Bushes weren’t trotting their daughters out whenever they want to show off their “family values.” Much like the Cheney’s drag poor Mary out whenever they want to show that they aren’t anti-gay, and then profess outrage, when people actually mention that she’s a lesbian.
This is my point. None of these women are non-participants. They have inserted themselves into the political fray, and don’t think they’re not heavily invested in perpetuating the power structure they inhabit. I don’t know from this writing exactly what slurs you find offensive, and I’m sure a number of them are unnecessarily mean spirited, and even sexist, and I’m as offended by that as the next person. But, to say that they are not germane to political dialogue is to underestimate their role in it.
this party, but…
That was the best laugh I’ve had today…. Thank you.
Asterlil, your points are well taken, somewhat, but you’re assuming that a place like this is supposed to be a showcase where we put on our Sunday meetin’ garb for the amusement of some unspecified others. To me, it’s just a place to say what I think. I’m not here to model the “nice” liberal or unthreatening Democrat. I’m here to say what I think and hear what others think.
I don’t know whether I’ve called Barabara a bitch — I’d like to think I’m a better writer than that. But that’s certainly one of the words I’d use for her. The truth is, I hate her. I hate all Bushes, back to the first swindlers and collaborators who started the family fortune. If I were God I’d send them all to Hell. I guess you’d counsel me to get beyond the hate, and you’d no doubt be on the side of the angels. But would you say the same about Saddam or Bin Laden or everybody else in the world without exception? If not, you are simply making a judgement about who I should be allowed to hate. I think if hate is allowed at all, the Bushes, who are all either actors, beneficiaries or enablers of a vastly evil empire, are a perfectly rational target for it — as much as anybody I can think of. I’m well aware that it’s “unproductive” blablabla, but hey, that’s me. [shrug]
As far as Coulter and her kind, well, you raise an age-old dilemma: how do you respond to an evil psychotic with a huge megaphone? Ignore her? Respond in kind? With beings like Coulter, rational dialog is not an option. I don’t know of any reasonable solution, but until one is found, using her for verbal target practice does offer some small degree of gratification.
Re the reproductive system as epithet, I regretfully have to register mild disgareement. Your complaint seems to come with a whiff of self-pity, the number one fatal disease among liberals. Yes, women are called bitches, etc., and it isn’t “nice”, and men are called bastards, motherfuckers, and a cache of other verbal ammo fully as rich as its feminine counterpart. So playing the sexist card on that basis strikes me as kind of dishonest and manipulative, frankly.
I will confess that the C word revolts me, and I never use it. But thinking about it, I fear that that in fact unveils a kind of misogeny lurking somewhere in my lower depths, not an evidence of virtue.
Anyway, thanks for a thought provoking diary.
Yes, what are blogs for? Are they purely for venting? How about brainstorming? When someone puts up a link and talks about it, and we all post to that diary, are we having a discussion or a joking contest?
A while back, when the new pope was elected, Jon Stewart ran clips of CNN and Fox saying nothing very much about smoke, black or white. After the clips he leaned back in his chair and said, “What kind of TV work is that where you just shout things at the video screen? That’s MY job!” to great laughter.
Blogs are all things to all people, but some blogs should be allowed to be discussions, and not all of them should be drowned out by people who only want to shout at the TV.
I’ve said, I love snark as much as the next guy. But snark shows brains and a sense of humor, ideally, I admit. Creativity, word-play, smarts — I look for them in the posts people make to diaries. But shouting is just… shouting. It doesn’t advance the dialogue.
I agree with most of what you said, but don’t know what to do about it. Sometimes shouting at the TV is fun. Sometimes it interferes with substantive discussion and drives away people who would otherwise participate in that discussion.
The blog format, where stuff just scrolls quickly away into oblivion, is worse for that than setups like Utne, but they have other downsides.
I’m endlessly frustrated by the lack of discussions that have the time and interest to evolve into actual understandings, strategies, or conclusions. I’ve “met” lots of folks on the Net with smarts, knowledge, and understanding. You’d think that would turn into more, but somehow it doesn’t. Maybe all that means is I need get off my butt, shut off the computer and get out into the “real” world more.
This has been, is being, a good discussion.
can I ask why those words of making someone look bad and different have to be said? NO matter female or male. Is there not a way to to discuss things wihtout using such terms, in otherwords. Or has the english language gotten that bad altogether.
It’s just the way we are. Probably the same reasons dogs fight with other dogs.
I guess some would think a world with all that nastiness suppressed would be a better one. Personally is suspect it would finally become even more toxic than the one we have.
Comparing sexist language against men with that against women is always lame. That is like white people complaining about reverse racism. It’s pathetic and ignorant to respond to real issues with “you do it too”. Learn that one thing from us extremist woman’s studies set, if nothing else. Besides your examples are mostly gender free insults.
The issues is not whether you insult Barb Bush. I don’t think anyone gives a damn about that. The problem is when you use words like bitch (female dog, only good for breeding…which is where the insult comes from) you are insulting the women who are reading the comment.
Yes I understand that most people will not be insulted or offended, but is it so difficult to just come up with a better word?
Why is it “always lame”? Stating it doesn’t make your case. How is pointing out that terms for female and male genitals are used as epithets like white people complaining about reverse racism? I didn’t accuse women of doing so more than anyone else. I just pointed out that it’s a universal thing in our culture and language. Nor do I think calling me a dick is “sexist language”. We use sex and religion as the source for our cussing — strange but undeniable.
Call my examples gender free if you wish, but you know they are almost never used on women. And you know there are more specific male ones out there. You don’t like the crudity? Fine. But as far as I’m concerned making a “feminist” issue is just silly and self-defeating.
One big difference in the use of the terms is that men as a class (there are always exceptions) still have far more social power than women, just as whites as a class (exceptions, yada yada) still have far more social power than other races. That power differential is a large part of what makes use of many of the terms different, and that’s why it’s seen as a feminist issue. There are also nuances in uses of specific epithets in specific ways, but that’s a much longer conversation.
is an insult against white men. LOL
Dave the reason it is always lame is because sexism and racism is really no threat to those who are at the top of the pecking order. For a man to cry “sexism” is like the school bully saying “yeah, I hit him but he looked at me funny”.
I was recently discussing the concept of the Jungian shadow with Recordkeeper.
Why has America turned into a nation that establishes gulags, where it imprisons and tortures men without charge or trial?
Because Bush, and America as a whole, are struggling with the shadow without, but not facing the shadow within.
The same thing is happening at DailyKos, where the “Kossacks” are so focused on battling the “evil” Bush that they don’t wrestle with the darkness within themselves–and they react most violently when anyone dare accuses THEM of being as misogynistic as the Bushies they hate so much!
One of our frames of reference in popular culture for discussing this is the recent “Lord of the Rings” trilogy of films, in which Frodo has his own shadow–Gollum/Smeagol, who represents not only what Frodo will become under the influence of the Ring, but all that he IS, deep within himself.
The decisive turning point is Frodo’s struggle with his own Gollum. The kingdom of evil crumbles not as a result of one-to-one combat with its leader, but as a result of Frodo becoming possessed by his own shadow, wrestling with his Gollum, and fighting – almost to the death – for the Ring of Power.
Frodo must carry the ring and avoid the temptation of wearing it. He must possess the ring, and hold its power without being possessed or consumed by it. But in the end, for good to prevail, he must temporarily lose his own self-possession – and experience the forces of possession and consumption fully within himself – for the ring to be destroyed.
But Frodo does not succeed alone – as no one can fully succeed alone in the battle evil on so large a scale as manifested by Sauron and contained within the ring. He is helped most of all by his devoted companion, Sam. But beyond Sam, he requires the aid of other hobbits – a coalition of peoples, of allies working together. The destruction of the ring – of the source of corrupt power cannot be accomplished by one person or unilateral action; it requires the unified cooperation of diverse peoples and nations.
And, as you have already pointed out, Bush is battling the shadow without, not wrestling with the shadow within–a task of which he is most definitely not capable.
And the Kossacks, too, are battling the Shadow without, not wrestling with the shadow within.