Posted on 12/01/2003 7:54:23 AM PST by .cnI redruM
At a recent news conference in London a reporter asked President Bush, "Why do they hate you, Mr. President? Why do they hate you in such numbers?" It's a rather embarrassing question to ask anyone, never mind the leader of the free world, and Bush in his reply shed no new light on this peculiar political phenomenon. Every president has his detractors, of course. If he did not there would be reason to wonder whether he was doing his job. But Bush hatred does seem to be sui generis.
Bill Clinton was surely disliked by many conservatives, but even taking into consideration his impeachment, their dislike for him was, in certain respects, restrained. No anti-Clinton political movement or candidate ever emerged, only Dole's ironic detachment of the 1996 election. Hillary Clinton is certainly despised by the Right for her far-left sensibilities, but that's largely not the case with her husband, whose policies were relatively moderate and whose rhetoric was nearly always middle of the road. It is true that Ronald Reagan was greatly disliked by the Left, even hated. But it was an antipathy dripping with condescension, and condescension does not easily work itself into the white-hot lather of a Howard Dean — only the patronizing sneer of a Walter Mondale.
So what is it about George W. Bush that drives the Left utterly mad? Liberals have given many justifications for their righteous anger: He "stole" the 2000 election; he's too Texan, too Christian, just too dumb; he struts and talks like a yokel. Others complain bitterly of his "far-right" policies: His support for a ban on partial-birth abortion, his opposition to human cloning and gay marriage, and his tax cuts and faith-based initiatives. And, of course, there's the war in Iraq — always the war in Iraq.
These explanations no doubt have something to do with why the Left despises Bush. But there is more to their hatred than is generally understood — something more fundamental is at work. Almost all modern liberal thought begins with the bedrock assumption that humans are basically good. Within this moral horizon something such as terrorism cannot really exist, except as a manifestation of injustice, or unfairness, or lack of decent social services. Whether knowingly or not Bush has directly challenged this core liberal belief — and for this he is not easily forgiven.
The president has in fact acknowledged liberals' desire "to put that day [of September 11] behind us, as if waking from a dark dream." But if "the hope that danger has passed is comforting," it is also, Bush has admonished, "false." September 11 was no dream; it was, in his view, a portent of what may come. And so Bush has repeatedly urged his audiences to see that "the evil is in plain sight," and that the democracies must learn to "face these threats with open eyes."
But what should be clear and obvious is made obscure by liberal ideology. If we are to face the evil in plain sight, we must first properly fit words to facts. Bush calls the terrorists "killers" and "evildoers," and speaks of an "axis of evil." He affirms the need for the "violent restraint of violent men," and argues that military strength is necessary to keep at bay "a chaotic world ruled by force." He describes life under Hussein's rule in Iraq as a "Baathist hell." We live, the president warns, in "a time of danger."
These are not mere words to Bush, but have given shape to his singular foreign policy. The president went to war in Iraq rather than trust the good faith of Hussein or the diligence of U.N. arms inspectors; he refuses to recognize Arafat as a legitimate leader of the Palestinian people; he has made clear that a lasting peace can come to the Middle East only through democratic reform. The very touchstone of his thinking is the moral and political distinction between democracy and tyranny.
Such analysis does not go down well with liberals. The utopian Left believes that the wolf can be made to dwell with the lamb. Their preferred method of dealing with wolfish dictators is to "dialogue" with them. Surely, they say, dictators want (well, more or less,) what we want: peace and good will towards all men. It is this sort of blindness that allowed Arafat to win the Nobel Peace prize. It is this sort of wishful thinking that led liberals to believe that Hussein could be contained by U.N. resolutions alone. The Left almost as a matter of ideology shuns all such unpleasant realities. The Clinton administration, after all, proposed calling rogue states — nations who starve and torture their own citizens and threaten their neighbors — "states of concern." Bush simply calls them "evil."
The Left vilifies Bush because he insists on calling a spade a spade, and in so doing threatens to bring down their entire intellectual edifice. Even after the horrors of the 20th century, the Left has yet to recover from its Rousseau-induced hangover. Liberals still insist on seeing human nature as basically good. Nothing is more offensive to such a mentality, not Hussein's torture chambers, not al Qaeda's wanton killing of innocent life, than one who dares to speak so plainly of "evildoers."
I think Wolfson is correct about the true graveman behind the Bush-bashing. They follow the beliefs of Rousseau while Bush follows the dictates of Voltaire.
Liberals see people as basically good, conservatives realize that at the core, beneath a thin veneer of socialization, we are still salacious monkeys. Liberals see society as a barrier to the goodness of our natural impulses, conservatives see society as the only thing keeping "Baathist hell" from being loosed on the Earth.
Personally, I'm on the side of keeping the dog on a leash. I don't like being restrained personally, but if the guy next to me is three times my size, a whole lot better armed, and he's looking at my lady-friend like a prime rib cut of a-- steak, I'm quite happy that he's on a leash.
Liberals have no clue how the human mind works. They think ego is something Keyshawn Johnson displays to amuse us on game day. This is why they can't be trusted with responsible, elected postioons.
Thanks especially for your clearly written personal commentary on the article.
But I rarely had the visceral reaction to his policy implementations, probably because his impact was so minimal. That's the crux of the matter: Reagan and Bush are vilified by their political opponents precisely because they are effective presidents. The invasion of Iraq and the subsequent Middle East reorganization will prove to be seismic events in history. What did Clinton have? "Don't ask don't tell"? Kosovo?
The man was an inconsequential, embarrassing fool.
Which is why Slick Willie was so beloved in Europe. They saw themselves in him.
If this is true (and I am not sure I accept that liberals actually believe this despite what they say), they seriously need to grow up. And, they need to read some history.
The fact is some people are outright evil, thoroughly bad to the core, and no amount of social services or understanding or "dialogue" will ever change that.
If National Defense means anything at all, it means to protect us from people like that.
This is so much more likely the aim of the leftists, not some idealized utopia. They are not so basically good themselves that they can even resist their aching hunger to run other people's lives.
A righteous man, by his very existence, makes evildoers uncomfortable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.