| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Why the Donkeys hate Dubya |
| 2003-09-18 |
| Bill Moyers may have his politics, but his deferential demeanor and almost avuncular television style made him the Mr. Rogers of American politics. So when he leaves his neighborhood to go to a "Take Back America" rally and denounces George W. Bush’s "government of, by and for the ruling corporate class," leading a "right-wing wrecking crew" engaged in "a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States way of governing," you know that something is going on. Moyers is the stone calling the down-feather hard. That something is the unhinging of the Democratic Party. Democrats are seized with a loathing for President Bush — a contempt and disdain giving way to a hatred that is near pathological — unlike any since they had Richard Nixon to kick around. An otherwise reasonable man, Julian Bond of the N.A.A.C.P., speaks of Bush’s staffing his Administration with "the Taliban wing of American politics." Harold Meyerson, editor at large of The American Prospect, devotes a 3,000-word article to explaining why Bush is the most dangerous President in all of American history — his only rival being Jefferson Davis. But they try to defend the Taliban. The puzzle is where this depth of feeling comes from. Bush’s manner is not particularly aggressive. He has been involved in no great scandals, Watergate or otherwise. He is, indeed, not the kind of politician who radiates heat. Yet his every word and gesture generate heat — a fury and bitterness that animate the Democratic primary electorate and explain precisely why Howard Dean has had such an explosive rise. More than any other candidate, Dean has understood the depth of this primal anti-Bush feeling and has tapped into it. tap tap tap
Whence the anger? It begins of course with the "stolen" election of 2000 and the perception of Bush’s illegitimacy. But that is only half the story. An illegitimate President winning a stolen election would be tolerable if he were just a figurehead, a placeholder, the kind of weak, moderate Republican that Democrats (and indeed many Republicans) thought George Bush would be, judging from his undistinguished record and tepid 2000 campaign. Bush’s great crime is that he is the illegitimate President who became consequential — revolutionizing American foreign policy, reshaping economic policy and dominating the political scene ever since his emergence as the post-9/11 war President. They dread a Republican with the urge to stop the Bad Guys™ Before that, Bush could be written off as an accident, a transitional figure, a kind of four-year Gerald Ford. And then came 9/11. Bush took charge, declared war, and sent the country into battle twice, each time bringing down enemy regimes with stunning swiftness. In Afghanistan, Bush rode a popular tide; Iraq, however, was a singular act of presidential will. But Iraq was sympathetic to the terrorists. That will, like it or not, has remade American foreign policy. The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy is the subtitle of a new book by two not very sympathetic scholars, Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay. The book is titled America Unbound. The story of the past two years could just as well be titled Bush Unbound. The President’s unilateral assertion of U.S. power has redefined America’s role in the world. Here was Bush breaking every liberal idol: the ABM Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, deference to the U.N., subservience to the "international community." It was an astonishing performance that left the world reeling and the Democrats seething. The pretender had not just seized the throne. He was acting like a king. Nay, an emperor. "Iconoclast!" On the domestic front, more shock. Democrats understand that the Bush tax cuts make structural changes that will long outlive him. Like the Reagan cuts, they will starve the government of revenue for years to come. Add to that the Patriot Act and its (perceived) assault on fundamental American civil liberties, and Bush the Usurper becomes more than just consequential. He becomes demonic. A mendacious ass-ault to throw a wrench in the Republican works. The current complaint is that Bush is a deceiver, misleading the country into a war, after which there turned out to be no weapons of mass destruction. But it is hard to credit the deception charge when every intelligence agency on the planet thought Iraq had these weapons and, indeed, when the weapons there still remain unaccounted for. Moreover, this is a post-facto rationale. Sure, the aftermath of the Iraq war has made it easier to frontally attack Bush. But the loathing long predates it. It started in Florida and has been deepening ever since Bush seized the post-9/11 moment to change the direction of the country and make himself a President of note. He’s anti- Which is why the Democratic candidates are scrambling desperately to out-Dean Dean. Their constituency is seized with a fever, and will nominate whichever candidate feeds it best. Political fevers are a dangerous thing, however. The Democrats last came down with one in 1972--and lost 49 states. Watch out with that comparison. |
| Posted by:Katz |
| #6 While this won't matter to most of the people who puruse this site, it's mostly the lying. This is going back to the election when the man presented himself as being fairly moderate but where he turns out to be Gingrich in sheep's clothing. If the man stood for anything else but tax cuts for his countryclub buddies it might be different. To put it another way, how do you respect a man who wages war in a half-ass way when failure is not an option? |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2003-9-19 1:15:52 PM |
| #5 Which is why the California recall vote may become very interesting. The Dems have guessed they cannot stop Bush from being re-elected in 2004. That is game over. But they need prevent another mid-term style debacle in Senate and Congressional races. Otherwise Hillary won't have a party to run for in 08. So....lets stop the vote. If the Supremes let the 9th Circuit decision stand, then the ACLU should be able to waltz into court and suspend the election in any tight race..... |
| Posted by: john 2003-9-18 7:23:59 PM |
| #4 Democrats understand that the Bush tax cuts make structural changes that will long outlive him. Like the Reagan cuts, they will starve the government of revenue for years to come. If memory serves, the money went flooding into the treasury after a couple years... unfortunately the spending saw it head out in larger quantities... |
| Posted by: eLarson 2003-9-18 6:40:35 PM |
| #3 When hatred reaches the point where it overpowers common sense, you have the seeds for totalitarianism. Look at Hitler, Stalin, just about every other jack-booted thug in the last 100 years. The Democrats claim that Bush is "the new Hitler", but the actions of their own "leaders" indicate that they, not Bush, fill this role. The little guy, the guy that actually pulls the lever and VOTES, is tired of the wimp image of the United States, fostered by the Democrats. They also welcome the additional dollars in their pockets George has insured for them. George Bush has rekindled their pride in this country. It would take some major revelation - even greater than Watergate - to shake Bush's presidential ambitions in 2004. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-9-18 1:33:20 PM |
| #2 yeah, yeah.... whatever... History will be kind to GW regardless of what the jackass party thinks... |
| Posted by: ----------<<<<- 2003-9-18 11:50:08 AM |
| #1 Meant to file this under Home Front. |
| Posted by: Katz 2003-9-18 10:58:29 AM |