Reply
Thu 11 Sep, 2003 12:30 pm
William F. Buckley Jr.: Bush is evil
By William F. Buckley Jr.
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Tuesday, September 9, 2003
In a private forum the question arose, Why do they hate Bush so? And ... what will they do with that hatred? How far can they carry it? How will it affect the next presidential election?
The participants agreed that it is a singular hatred, greater by far than what was felt by dissenters against Ronald Reagan in 1984, and rivaling what was felt for Nixon in 1973-'74. It supplies a useful context here to recall that hatred of Nixon was very much alive in 1972, but he carried 49 states in his re-election bid. The decapitation of Nixon was in due course effected, but required his cooperation.
Bush, by contrast, is not ever going to engage in suicidal activity of an extra-political character. Does this mean that the animosity toward him will wash away in the flood tide of a re-election victory? An examination of this point needs of course to acknowledge that you don't have to do a Watergate to end your career. George H.W. Bush ended his without any brush with felony.
The inquiry continues: Why the feelings toward Bush? The answer, as agreed upon in this improvised study, was: 1) He is not legitimately president of the United States. The other guy got more votes. Bush slipped in because of capricious conduct by the courts. 2) Bush is a Christer. He takes every opportunity to inform the American people that he is in touch with the Lord and therefore that, by deduction, what he does is the Lord's work.
3) He gravely miscalculated the onus of what he set out to do in Iraq. The consequences of that miscalculation are deaths unending, and more money spent than King Solomon dreamed of. 4) The economy lacks the kind of resiliency it might have shown if more resourcefully tended. 5) His truckling to the rich in his tax cuts shows a callous disregard of civil adjudications between America's poor and America's rich.
And finally, 6) He is a liar. He specifically informed the public that Iraq had in hand instantly deployable weapons of mass destruction. These, it proved, did not exist.
The question then was: How will the opposition communicate this animosity? When Democratic Candidate X faces President Bush in the televised debate, how will he express, or capitalize on, the odium? One participant recalled the deep, histrionic sighs of Al Gore when confronting Bush in debate. But of course the consensus was that Gore was hurt, not helped, by the body language.
Will the average voter wish to hear about the evil of Bush? What is the good of hating Bush if you can't interest your neighbor, and his neighbor, in hating Bush? That, after all, is the point of this exercise -- to send Bush back to his ranch, permanently.
Probably the first person who will need to explore these questions is Howard Dean. Dean is campaigning against Bush using language that would be appropriate in campaigning against a public enemy. One assumes the sincerity of Dean's passion, which is doing yeoman work for him with Internet ideologues and with Manichaean Democrats drawn to the proposition that the only way to understand Bush is to know that he is evil.
Is it predictable that after Dean sews up the nomination, winning in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, he will confront a body of previously inert Democrats who will be reluctant to endorse an anti-Bush campaign based on the incumbent's venality?
If that happened, how quickly would it happen? The nomination might well be sewn up by early March of 2004. How soon after that would Candidate Dean discover that the drumbeat which has been propelling him isn't resonating over hill and vale into the body of voters needed to proceed with the election of a new president, which is something different from the excommunication of a sinner?
That test could come before Dean is anointed. It is entirely possible that the people who go to the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire will be wondering whether they are being co-opted by the moral absolutes of Candidate Dean, who is asking them to dispatch him to kill the dragon in the White House.
George Bush could ease that problem for Dean by simply becoming evil. But that is not something Howard Dean can safely count upon.
What I find interesting is that Buckley ignores the Patriot Act which is the most pernicious of Bush's creations.
I have never been overly fond of Buckles. He and George Will strike me as too fond of the thought of an American aristocracy. Maybe I'm just jealous of anyone who can throw that many $65.00 words into one essay and not sound absolutely idiotic.
Hobitbob
Although Buckley comes off as a wannabe American aristocrat he has a point. Dean IMO will only appeal to dyed in the wool democrats. To win a national election one must capture the swing vote. IMO the democrats bank on winning only because they believe the Bush presidency was such a disaster that he is bound to lose. What do they have to offer? What beside negativity has they offered to this point. They better come up with a message before the election. And not a left wing one.
"...wannabe American aristocrat..."
You nailed it, Au!
But as for the "negativity" thing, that's getting really old and stale. Try a fresh look. Try looking back at the Republicans vs. Clinton. That's negativity in its sleaziest form! Then compare Dean and (for example) W. The first is a courageous independent candidate; the other has strings attached to every limb, the head, and the torso. Bush the puppet's negativity is apparent when it comes to freedom, justice, and open government.
What the republicans did to Clinton has no relevance at this juncture. The election is the Democrats to win they cannot bank on Bush losing as Gore did. I will again make one point. The American public will not elect a left-winger to the presidency. Dean IMO is a loser and further more the DNC knows it. If the presidency is to be captured by a democrat they need nominate a candidate who can win.
Don't know about Dean, but Buckley's assertions 2 to 6 (plus the one put forth Acquiunk) are all true.
Assertion 1 is debatable. Bush may have really lost, but, after all, he's legally The President of the United States.
In which issues do you find Dean particularly left wing, Au? And in which ones centrist?
That is exactly why I have contributed to the Dean campaign.
Dean will find, as Buckley has suggested, that the raving maniacs on the far left only represent, at most, 3 and a half percent of the American Voting Public.
I am very much afraid that only someone who much more centrist than Dean has a chance against Bush.
Au 1929 got it right in the bullseye. Dean will appeal only to "dyed in the wool Democrats."
It is most depressing to me that a professor like Hobibit should decry Buckley's usage of, as Hobibit terms them "65 dollar words".
I hope I do not need to point out to the learned professor that words should be used only if they serve to more precisely define the thought.
I am sure that the professor will agree that "egregious" is often more approprate than "bad".
Buckley may not be Professor Hobibit's favorite intellectual, but a commentator far wiser than he, namely, Richard A. Posner, has opined:
"Some intellectuals are of such a high quality that they are celebreties. I count among these, Henry Kissinger, Patrick Moynihan, George Will and William Buckley."
"
Oh no, Professor Hobibit, you aren't going to do that to one of your students who has his hand raised at the back of the room, are you?
Why I thought liberal professors were able, with one sweep of their mighty intellects, able to turn back even the most difficult of challenges.
You disappoint me.
It couldn't be that I post such difficult questions that you are afraid of me, would it?
That's OK, Professor. you can scroll. I will be there for the edification of those like George OB who will snicker when you run.
You see, professor, the best part of my posts are when I have written them and view my response.
I will continue to raise my hand professor. It is a shame that you are so insecure that you cannot answer.
itsy kitsy wrote:It couldn't be that I post such difficult questions that you are afraid of me, would it?
It couldn't be that you really don't care about discussion but instead enjoy being annoying, could it?
Thank you "Mr." Tartarin. Wil I see you at the Crossdresser's ball?
Italgato -- When you intentionally mispell people's names, the insult makes me scroll past anything you have to say.
Ignoring someone who does not contribute constructive ideas
is simple efficiency, not insecurity.
I say this with the hope that you may gain credibility and respect in the future,
if that's what you want.
I'm guilty as well. I apologize.
I find it fascinating that a Republican party that has specialized in a scorched earth, take no prisoners approach to their adversaries, that started looking for a way to impeach Bill Clinton from the very beginning of his presidency, that sees compromise as weakness or even betrayal,
when finally faced with an unafraid democrat who is willing to 'give 'em hell' they start whining and label him a hater.
If Buckley is looking for a real hater maybe he should start with Ann Coulter, who unblinkingly labels liberals as 'traitors' ....about the nastiest thing you can call someone in a democracy.
My advice to the repubs is to stop whining about that mean Howard Dean and go after him on the issues.
Dean will continue to give Bush hell but he will win the presidency on a positive progressive platform and a message of hope. he will be aided immensely by the publics increasing awareness that Bush has made a mess of foreign policy, domestic policy, the war on Al Qaida, the economy, the budget, tax policy etc etc.
Well, Mr. Code Borg. Why don;t you go to find some of my posts that you say are not "Constructive Ideas" and let me know what they are.
The left wing seems to feel that ideas that are not constructive are ideas that do not agree with their prejudices.
And Professor Hobibit: I am really surprised at you.
A professor, who with one swing of his mighty intellect, could destroy me!!!
Afraid to take me on?
Because I am annoying?
Well. dear professor, let me assure you, I can't be half as annoying to you as you are to me, yet I am not afraid of you.
I love to meet you mano a mano.
An addemdum to code borg RE: misspellings.
A couple of weeks ago I was taken to task by several people for pointing out misspellings.
Now, I am getting a different message from you.
Will you make up your mind?
I am entirely capable of hewing to the no spelling mistakes allowed routine but I must insist that everyone else follow along.
Misspelled names?
Would you care to review the spellings given to my name, Code Borg??
Again, Code Borg, list my posts that are not constructive ideas( you are obliged to tell me why they are not constructive) and check to see how my name was spelled.
I disagree (sometimes profoundly) with Italigato on many points. But, given my track reord on the subject, if I were to jump on someone for misspelling, I'd be run out of this forum on a rail
My experience of posts in this forum is that those by CodeBorg aspire to courtesy and relevance as much as those of any other member i've seen. I've noted both CodeBorg's courtesy, and his courteous suggestions to others that they will get a better response with that same simple courtesy. I admire CodeBorg's restraint and decency in posting here.
I've noted that IG and HB go after each other hammer and tongs. I've noted that they rarely pass up the opportunity to open fire on one another, and the thread be damned. I'm writing none of this to paint myself in a saintly light, i've got a well-used flamethrower in my own aresenal. Seeing with what restraint and reasonableness CodeBorg posts has made me pause, and experience shame at my own behavior in another thread quite recently. I think Code's post here is quite to the point, and support the sentiment.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace