Monday, September 22, 2003
Dubyaphobia
Jonathan Chait has a disappointing piece in the latest edition of The New Republic on the case for hating Bush. Let me count the ways by which Chait hates #43:
His privileged birth and inability to recognize it
His highly conservative programs
His continual quest for partisan advantage in the wake of 9/11
The manner of his assuming office (the Nader and Florida factors)
The defeat to the idea of meritocracy that his success represents
His apparent lack of intelligence or curiosity
To be sure, Chait recognizes that hatred can have the tendency of sliding into irrationality. I quote:
Have Bush haters lost their minds? Certainly some have. Antipathy to Bush has, for example, led many liberals not only to believe the costs of the Iraq war outweigh the benefits but to refuse to acknowledge any benefits at all, even freeing the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. And it has caused them to look for the presidential nominee who can best stoke their own anger, not the one who can win over a majority of voters--who, they forget, still like Bush. But, although Bush hatred can result in irrationality, it's not the product of irrationality.
But in the end, the excesses of hatred are not the subject on his mind. Witness the closing paragraph:
You decide Bush is a dullard lacking any moral constraints in his pursuit of partisan gain, loyal to no principle save the comfort of the very rich, unburdened by any thoughtful consideration of the national interest, and a man who, on those occasions when he actually does make a correct decision, does so almost by accident.
There. That feels better.
My problem with Dubyaphobia is not grounded in its critique of his policies, at least his domestic ones. The very last sentence of Chait's piece brings it all home to me - in the end, indulging in this sort of ranting is self-indulgent and lazy. And I think it caters to the dark side of the liberal personality, without doing anything to advance liberal goals. As a member of the Star Wars generation, I've been brought up to believe that anger and hate come from the Dark Side of the Force, and we all knows what embracing that will lead to (without having to see any of the prequel movies in fact.)
Chait spends a fair amount of time discussing the issue of Dubya's intelligence, lamenting that: "ust as mainstream Democrats and liberals ceased to question Bush's right to hold office, so too did they cease to question his intelligence." He goes on to renew the case by citing a few instances where Dubya was clearly unaware of a topic being posed to him. But frankly, there could be any number of circumstances at play. Ask yourself: how many times has someone asked a question to which you knew the answer, but were unable to remember it in time? You might say back to me that you're not president - well fair enough, but it still doesn't go to a question of your intelligence.
Some - not Chait - tend to base their claim more on the self-evident rightness of liberal policy positions. This is not a conscious statement often, but it is implied. That is far deeper water because the essential contention is not really about Dubya but about conservatives in general.
The dark side of the liberal personality can be a smug sense of rightness, just as an equally intolerant self-righteousness is the dark side of the conservative personality. That is not to say that all liberals or conservatives have this dark side, but merely that these are vices to which each side can be prone. Frankly, I have a hard time hearing liberals snickering about Bush without hearing them tapping into their ids and venting. That this is electorally counterproductive is certain. It's also just plain ugly behavior.
I've generally seen Bush as canny, if not always well-briefed. His instincts are often pretty good, and he is known to be a gut decision-maker. Bill Clinton had a brief meeting with him in the last days of 2000 and later said to friends that he thought Bush was pretty smart after all. Is Bush attentive enough to the range of issues facing America and the world to be a good President? I personally doubt it, but I find it neither satisfying, nor helpful nor tasteful to despise or ridicule him.
In the underrated Godfather III Michael Corleone passes one very useful tip to his successor Vincent: "Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgement." Vincent, of course, doesn't heed it, and all too many liberals today aren't heeding it either. You want to get rid of Bush? Spend more time critiquing the current policy in Iraq than calling him a liar. Find a candidate who speaks to your brain instead of one who panders to your anger. Your objective for the next 14 months is not to vent or "feel better." It is to reclaim the White House and Congress and to set this country on a better path. Anger and hatred are costly indulgences.
Jonathan Chait has a disappointing piece in the latest edition of The New Republic on the case for hating Bush. Let me count the ways by which Chait hates #43:
To be sure, Chait recognizes that hatred can have the tendency of sliding into irrationality. I quote:
Have Bush haters lost their minds? Certainly some have. Antipathy to Bush has, for example, led many liberals not only to believe the costs of the Iraq war outweigh the benefits but to refuse to acknowledge any benefits at all, even freeing the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. And it has caused them to look for the presidential nominee who can best stoke their own anger, not the one who can win over a majority of voters--who, they forget, still like Bush. But, although Bush hatred can result in irrationality, it's not the product of irrationality.
But in the end, the excesses of hatred are not the subject on his mind. Witness the closing paragraph:
You decide Bush is a dullard lacking any moral constraints in his pursuit of partisan gain, loyal to no principle save the comfort of the very rich, unburdened by any thoughtful consideration of the national interest, and a man who, on those occasions when he actually does make a correct decision, does so almost by accident.
There. That feels better.
My problem with Dubyaphobia is not grounded in its critique of his policies, at least his domestic ones. The very last sentence of Chait's piece brings it all home to me - in the end, indulging in this sort of ranting is self-indulgent and lazy. And I think it caters to the dark side of the liberal personality, without doing anything to advance liberal goals. As a member of the Star Wars generation, I've been brought up to believe that anger and hate come from the Dark Side of the Force, and we all knows what embracing that will lead to (without having to see any of the prequel movies in fact.)
Chait spends a fair amount of time discussing the issue of Dubya's intelligence, lamenting that: "ust as mainstream Democrats and liberals ceased to question Bush's right to hold office, so too did they cease to question his intelligence." He goes on to renew the case by citing a few instances where Dubya was clearly unaware of a topic being posed to him. But frankly, there could be any number of circumstances at play. Ask yourself: how many times has someone asked a question to which you knew the answer, but were unable to remember it in time? You might say back to me that you're not president - well fair enough, but it still doesn't go to a question of your intelligence.
Some - not Chait - tend to base their claim more on the self-evident rightness of liberal policy positions. This is not a conscious statement often, but it is implied. That is far deeper water because the essential contention is not really about Dubya but about conservatives in general.
The dark side of the liberal personality can be a smug sense of rightness, just as an equally intolerant self-righteousness is the dark side of the conservative personality. That is not to say that all liberals or conservatives have this dark side, but merely that these are vices to which each side can be prone. Frankly, I have a hard time hearing liberals snickering about Bush without hearing them tapping into their ids and venting. That this is electorally counterproductive is certain. It's also just plain ugly behavior.
I've generally seen Bush as canny, if not always well-briefed. His instincts are often pretty good, and he is known to be a gut decision-maker. Bill Clinton had a brief meeting with him in the last days of 2000 and later said to friends that he thought Bush was pretty smart after all. Is Bush attentive enough to the range of issues facing America and the world to be a good President? I personally doubt it, but I find it neither satisfying, nor helpful nor tasteful to despise or ridicule him.
In the underrated Godfather III Michael Corleone passes one very useful tip to his successor Vincent: "Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgement." Vincent, of course, doesn't heed it, and all too many liberals today aren't heeding it either. You want to get rid of Bush? Spend more time critiquing the current policy in Iraq than calling him a liar. Find a candidate who speaks to your brain instead of one who panders to your anger. Your objective for the next 14 months is not to vent or "feel better." It is to reclaim the White House and Congress and to set this country on a better path. Anger and hatred are costly indulgences.
