|
Subject: Why I hate George
W. Bush.
From: Geoff
Date: Aug 20 2003 2:33PM
Alright, you asked for it. I'll try to keep my wits about me, though the
emotional base upon which this argument is built is quite tumultuous.
Why would I say that I "hate" George W. Bush? Isn't that a little
strong? Isn't he just your average politician? Isn't this just some natural
extension of your overall left-leaning political views?
No, not really.
Before I get to George W. Bush, I need to explain what I think about
politicians in general. For the moment, let us stipulate that politicians come
in three general flavors:
- The first category of politicians I believe to be genuinely honest and noble
men committed to the ideal of public service. These are politicians who
genuinely care, and strive to improve the Republic they cherish and the lives
of its citizens. I believe these politicians to have principles, but I think
they also understand reality rather well. They will master the art of
compromise in the interests of accomplishment, and they may very well change
their minds and their positions as they age or new events and concerns arise.
But in the end, they keep one eye on what they sincerely believe to be RIGHT
and another eye out for the pitfalls and roadsigns along the way. To our
credit, such politicians have been surprisingly common in my lifetime. Who
belongs in this category? George H.W. Bush was clearly such a man, and I
respected his Presidency at the time, and respect it more in retrospect
(despite my use of the convenient term "the first Bush Recession").
Bill Clinton was such a man. Bob Dole. John McCain. Howard Dean. Tom Daschle.
George Voinovich. Even Jesse Helms, unlikeable though he may have been, belongs
rightly in this category. I dare say, that this IS the most common type of
politician in our nation's service.
- The next category is where I place the demagogic ideologues. These are
individuals who seem to enter politics through the motivation of zealotry
rather than for personal gain. They're motives are similar to those of the
noble politicians, but they're inability to adapt or to bend within the
political process makes them dangerous to our Republic. For them, politics is
about specific ends, and the means will always be adapted as needed to attain
them. These politicians will lie and distort and accuse and rave. I don't have
respect for these kinds of politicians. I fear them. In this category we can
place Cynthia McKinney and Newt Gingrich, Dennis Kucinich and Tom DeLay. In
present times, there are more prominent politicians on the right than the left
whom I would place in this category. I don't believe it's a function of
ideology, but rather an accident of history. Unprincipled ideologues can come
from any stripe. It's when they conspire and manipulate to seize the levers of
power, first within a party, then within a government, that they will rise to
prominence. Right now, the DLC is the closest thing to a cabal that the
organized left has. And they're substantially less powerful within their party
than the RNC is within the Republican camp.
- Then, bottom on the totem pole of politicians, I would lump the remainder…
the unscrupulous cynics who gravitate to the profession for the love of power.
Often, we learn the truth about these politicians in their trials, as with
Senator Toricelli or with Richard M. Nixon. Dan Rostenkowski or Gray Davis. And
one, one of these scumbags prances before the public eye, nakedly
self-aggrandizing… contemptuous of America, contemptuous of Americans,
contemptuous of his detractors, contemptuous of his supporters… and nobody
seems to notice. And that one, I call him George W. Bush.
I can find very little in the life of George W. Bush to admire or to respect.
I can't fault him for having the fortune to be born into a family of wealth,
power and privilege. However, all the evidence shows that he never felt any
special responsibility came attached to the gifts he received from birth. And
I'm not even talking about the responsibility to be some kind of philanthropist
or minister to the poor. I'm talking about the responsibility to demonstrate
that he was entitled to all that he had by effort as well as by blood. With a
special dispensation he was allowed into a top East Coast prep school where he
slacked off and took the special efforts exerted on his behalf for granted.
Given an unearned shot at an institution allegedly based on merit, he
squandered and disdained the opportunity. Then, with mediocre grades he went to
Yale on the strength of connections alone, maintaining a C average, far below
the standard those who have attained such an opportunity through effort hold
themselves to. Somehow, he still managed to fail his way upward into the
Harvard MBA program, where again, there is no evidence that he applied himself
with any particular diligence. Again and again, through Bush's life, he was
handed opportunity that people strive ceaselessly for. Without any effort, he
received chances that people work themselves to the bone to never get a shot
at. And at each stage, he wasted it, unmindful and seemingly uncaring of the
extraordinary exceptions that had been made on his behalf.
Between his stint at Yale and the one at Harvard, Bush "served" in
the military. I don't see any particular disgrace in dodging the draft. Many
have done it, and many who haven't would have. My own father joined the Marine
Corps when his student deferment expired on the sensible theory that it was the
branch least likely to send him abroad. Bill Clinton joined the Rhodes Scholar
program. Dan Quayle joined the Indiana National Guard. But my father SERVED his
term as a Marine. Bill Clinton WENT to Oxford. Dan Quayle PUT IN HIS TIME in
the Indiana National Guard. Does it bother me that George W. Bush disappeared
from active duty in the Texas Air National Guard? Ceased taking the physical
after the institution of a drug-testing policy in 1972? Yes. It really does
bother me. And it should bother you too. Because once again, it points straight
to the issue of contempt. Contempt for America, for the obligations of
citizenship. Our system is set up to grant allowances. But if an allowance is
made for you, you should at least feel obligated to HONOR THE TERMS of your
dispensation. And George W. Bush demonstrated no such sense of duty. No such
sense of honor. Again, granted an opportunity on the basis of connections
and fortune, he spurned it… pursued his own selfish ends, his own entertainment,
at the expense of his nation.
I find nothing especially worthy of censure in his business career. It does
little to enhance my opinion of him, as it demonstrates mostly a capacity to
continue reaping, as an adult, the benefits of his more noble father's efforts.
But venality and incompetence are neither an advantage nor disadvantage in the
world of business, and say little about the true character of a man. At the age
of 40, we are led to believe that he found some new inner-strength. It's hard
not to look at contempt with a man who can honestly profess that he did not
reach adulthood until his 40's. But in such matters, late is always better
than never.
But by the standards of his present behavior, the behavior which has marked his
rise to national prominence in the last several years, there is no
demonstration of a watershed transformation in his character that would render
him worthy of respect.
Being a shallow and opportunistic politician isn't an inherently damnable
offense, though I would certainly argue he is one. Our country would have been
better off had a more noble character been poised to reap the rewards of the
Supreme Court's unfortunate choice in 2000, but I cannot fault him too much for
his failures of leadership in that moment. His embrace of steel tariffs and
agricultural policy more reactionary than those supported by Dick Gephardt
doesn't automatically disqualify him from the ranks of men entitled to some
mercy.
In the end, it comes down to the simple issue of character.
People love to fulminate about character. My standards are not those of
everyone. I don't really hold any feelings against those prone to sins of the
appetite, as Bill Clinton was. I have trouble holding poor judgment against
those who demonstrate it. All I ask is some evidence of a fundamental
respect for the dignity of people. And I don't think George W. Bush has that
respect.
The evidence by which I come to this conclusion is unlikely to be compelling to
most, gleaned as it is from countless observations of subtle tell-tale signals.
The lies obviously bother me. There are those who believe that all politicians
lie, and that Bush's are nothing exceptional. I don't know how to rebut such a
charge, other than to state firmly and forcefully that I disagree. Watching
Bush tell the nation with a straight face that they will receive an
"average" tax cut of $1000 when he knows what the average person will
actually receive is one of those little acts of disrespect. Sneeringly
dismissing the protests of hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions
worldwide at his instigation of a war abroad as mere "focus groups"
is a telling indicator of the disrespect which created the frustration that
propelled them to the streets in the first place (may I remind you, that neither
his father nor his immediate predecessor faced anything on a comparable scale).
Putting out word that he believed Air Force One to be the target of a terrorist
attack to account for his shameful disappearance on September 11th of 2001…
that's a kind of falsehood which makes my stomach start to churn in disgust.
Untruths and misrepresentations abound in this President's public discourse,
when he even bothers to show himself in public. More than usual, even for a
politician. And, frankly, more than should be acceptable in the America I
thought I knew.
But the final mark of disrespect… the gut-level intuition that leads me to
label him an EVIL man, rather than a merely despicable one is his casual
contempt for human life. There aren't words to describe the horror I feel
when I see Bush look into the nation's television cameras with that sadistic
little smirk and tell us euphemistically, as if half-choking on a stifled snort
that our enemies… "let's put it this way: they are no longer a problem to
the United States and our friends and allies." The barely-suppressed,
no not really suppressed at all, look of GLEE at the thought of the death
America has inflicted upon it's enemies. I recognize that it is necessary
to kill human beings. I recognize that our security demands it. That every
president must hold the lives and deaths of strangers in his hands. But the
fact that we MUST kill NEVER excuses taking delight THAT we kill. You probably
don't believe me. I don't know if you believe Tucker Carlson when he describes
Bush's mockery of Karla Faye Tucker: "Please," Bush whimpers, his
lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me." Maybe some of you
don't believe it. Worse, may be some of you feel the same way, and consider
Bush's response… virtuous? I don't know. I look at Bush, taunting the camera,
daring America's enemies to "bring it on" and I see a sick and
disgusting man – the worst face of America sneering in the spotlight. A man who
doesn't bother to care about the enormity of his job, the enormity of its consequences,
and the enormity of this glorious Republic we've brought forth.
When I look at George W. Bush, I don't see a patriot. I see a lying,
psychopathic narcissist. And it pains me, it grieves me, it WOUNDS me to
realize that this puts me not only in the minority… but in the "whacko
fringe."
So, dwnny and TQM… I hope that answers your question…
|
